Major Refactor - Explicit Pixel Grids & CF Dimensions - v0.1.0

[jdbcode]

Major Refactor - Explicit Pixel Grids & CF Dimensions

This PR represents a major refactor to the core of Xee's backend. It is merges the simplify_pixel_grid_params branch into main. The simplify_pixel_grid_params has months of changes - the significant changes to Xee API have been through review, doc changes and CI/CD Python version changes were directly pushed. The most significant changes are adopting explicit pixel grid parameters for opening datasets (see discussion) and updating the default dimension ordering to align with community standards (see discussion). After this PR is merged we should release v0.1.0 (from v0.0.x).

⚠️ This version contains breaking changes. All users must update their existing xarray.open_dataset calls when upgrading to this version. Please refer to the Migration Guide for detailed instructions.

---

💥 Breaking Changes & Rationale

1. Explicit Pixel Grid Definition

The previous, heuristic-based grid definition arguments (scale, geometry, and projection) have been removed from xr.open_dataset(..., engine='ee').

• What Changed: The open_dataset function now requires three explicit parameters to define the pixel grid: crs, crs_transform (a 6-tuple affine matrix), and shape_2d (width/height pixel count).
• Rationale: This shift forces users to explicitly define the output grid, eliminating ambiguity and ensuring archival reproducibility. This is crucial for precise, repeatable geospatial workflows.

2. CF-friendly Dimension Ordering

The default order of spatial dimensions in the resulting Xarray objects has been changed.

• What Changed: Datasets are now returned in the dimension order [time, y, x] instead of the old [time, x, y].
• Rationale: This brings Xee into alignment with CF conventions and the expectations of most geospatial libraries (like rioxarray and cartopy), significantly reducing the need for manual .transpose() calls.

---

✨ New Features & Helper Utilities

To support the new explicit grid workflow, a new xee.helpers module has been added with key utilities:

• extract_grid_params(ee_obj): Automatically derives the required crs, crs_transform, and shape_2d from an existing ee.Image or ee.ImageCollection.
  • Rationale: This is the primary way to achieve a "match source grid" workflow, allowing reviewers to verify the use of the object's native grid parameters simply.
• fit_geometry(...): Computes the required grid parameters to cover a specific shapely.geometry (AOI) at either a fixed scale/resolution or a fixed shape/pixel count.
• Refined Transform Logic: The internal calculation for the affine transform now uses math.floor and math.ceil to precisely snap the grid to the bounding box extents, improving coordinate accuracy and preventing sub-pixel misalignment.

---

📚 Documentation & Infrastructure Updates

• Migration Guide Added: A new detailed guide, docs/migration-guide-v0.1.0.md, has been created to assist users in updating their code to the new v0.1.0 API.
• Extensive Documentation Refactor: New Core Concepts (concepts.md) and a User Guide (guide.md) were added to clarify the philosophy behind the pixel grid parameters and collect common workflows. The main README.md and examples have also been fully updated.
• CI/CD Updates: Python 3.10 support was removed from all CI workflows, and the default publish environment was updated to Python 3.11.

---

📋 Checklist

• Implemented new PixelGridParams signature and removed old implicit arguments.
• Updated default dimension ordering to [time, y, x].
• Added core grid helper utilities: extract_grid_params, fit_geometry, and set_scale.
• Updated documentation and added a dedicated Migration Guide.
• Updated CI/CD infrastructure to target Python 3.11.
• All tests in ext_integration_test.py and ext_integration_test.py pass.

[jdbcode]

I see that there are conflicts, I'll work on resolving these.

[schwehr]

The only blocker: Can we bring back python 3.10?

[jdbcode]

The only blocker: Can we bring back python 3.10?

Yes, I've added 3.10 back in.

[jdbcode]

@schwehr and @naschmitz I've addressed all of the comments. Can you please take another look.