Bugfix of link_coords

[zxdawn]

• Rename dataset to data

• Drop linked coordinates's dimension which does not exist in dataarray

• Closes Failed to save tropomi nc file with specific variables loaded #1493

• Tests added

[ghost]

Congratulations 🎉. DeepCode analyzed your code in 2.787 seconds and we found no issues. Enjoy a moment of no bugs ☀️.

👉 View analysis in DeepCode’s Dashboard | Configure the bot

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #1588 (f33b610) into master (d7fbbdf) will increase coverage by 0.73%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #1588      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   91.62%   92.36%   +0.73%     
==========================================
  Files         246      254       +8     
  Lines       36034    37413    +1379     
==========================================
+ Hits        33016    34555    +1539     
+ Misses       3018     2858     -160     

Flag	Coverage Δ
behaviourtests	4.78% <0.00%> (+0.36%)	⬆️
unittests	92.49% <100.00%> (+0.40%)	⬆️

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

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
satpy/tests/writer_tests/test_cf.py	99.69% <100.00%> (+0.02%)	⬆️
satpy/writers/cf_writer.py	95.18% <100.00%> (+1.30%)	⬆️
satpy/tests/test_resample.py	89.26% <0.00%> (-10.06%)	⬇️
satpy/resample.py	80.34% <0.00%> (-9.35%)	⬇️
satpy/tests/utils.py	92.61% <0.00%> (-5.09%)	⬇️
satpy/readers/satpy_cf_nc.py	97.56% <0.00%> (-1.02%)	⬇️
satpy/readers/__init__.py	96.99% <0.00%> (-0.47%)	⬇️
satpy/tests/test_scene.py	99.44% <0.00%> (-0.30%)	⬇️
satpy/tests/test_yaml_reader.py	99.55% <0.00%> (-0.29%)	⬇️
satpy/tests/writer_tests/test_awips_tiled.py	98.23% <0.00%> (-0.26%)	⬇️
... and 83 more

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update d7fbbdf...f33b610. Read the comment docs.

[mraspaud]

Thanks for taking on this issue. It took me a while to understand what was the aim of this PR, I think a simple unit test to accompany this would have made it easier :)
And in any case, for small changes like this, I really recommend writing a failing unit test FIRST, and fix and refactor afterwards.

So, long story short: there is still a unit test to write :)

[mraspaud]

Looks good! now just the test :)

[mraspaud]

LGTM! Thanks for fixing this!