Structured array highlevel accessors

[benjeffery]

No description provided.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 89.96%. Comparing base (5c6694e) to head (5c107db).
Report is 2 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #3098   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   89.95%   89.96%           
=======================================
  Files          29       29           
  Lines       32471    32498   +27     
  Branches     5823     5823           
=======================================
+ Hits        29209    29236   +27     
  Misses       1860     1860           
  Partials     1402     1402           

Flag	Coverage Δ
c-tests	86.69% <ø> (ø)
lwt-tests	80.78% <ø> (ø)
python-c-tests	89.23% <100.00%> (ø)
python-tests	98.99% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
python/_tskitmodule.c	89.23% <100.00%> (ø)
python/tskit/trees.py	98.87% <100.00%> (+0.01%)	⬆️

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[jeromekelleher]

Looks good

[jeromekelleher]

I'm not sure we want to offer this array in the high-level API. It may just be confusing. I would pull this out of the current PR, as it's orthogonal

[benjeffery]

Offset accessors removed in b74b824

[benjeffery]

@jeromekelleher one more thought here - we could return the raw metadata bytes if the codec doesn't support structuring?

[jeromekelleher]

Let's not - maybe we'll think of a better way of doing things in future and having it error out now leaves those options open.

[benjeffery]

@jeromekelleher Could I get a final check here?

[jeromekelleher]

LGTM. Would be good to have a perf check just to be sure before release, but happy to merge this.