BUG: fix indexing in WaveletPacketND.reconstruct for data_size - #857
Merged
rgommers merged 2 commits intoAug 13, 2026
Merged
Conversation
rgommers
approved these changes
Aug 13, 2026
rgommers
left a comment
rgommers
left a comment
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks @whyvineet. This does look correct and fixes the reported issue.
This code used to be correct once upon a time it looks like; numpy warned on and then changed its behavior for this non-tuple case:
FutureWarning: Using a non-tuple sequence for multidimensional indexing is deprecated
…-reconstruct-indexing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
When using
WaveletPacketND.reconstruct()to reconstruct the array, it may be necessary to trim it so that it matches the original shape. In order to prevent anIndexError, tuple-based slicing should be used rather than list-based indexing.Fixes #856