Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 94.54%. Comparing base (926a52f) to head (eb4aa28).

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #3359   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   94.54%   94.54%           
=======================================
  Files          78       79    +1     
  Lines        9423     9427    +4     
=======================================
+ Hits         8909     8913    +4     
  Misses        514      514           

pre-commit is mad about a docstring but otherwise this looks g2g

I'm a bit confused about why this is necessary. It's extremely common for downstream libraries to use functions from the testing modules of libraries (e.g., np.testing.assert_..., xr.testing.assert_...). Why do we need a different approach here? I question whether this change is worth it because putting LatencyStore in the same namespace at the other stores would add confusion for people who just want to use Zarr-Python, not develop downstream libraries.

Why do we need a different approach here? I question whether this change is worth it because putting LatencyStore in the same namespace at the other stores would add confusion for people who just want to use Zarr-Python, not develop downstream libraries.

I actually agree - I think it would make more sense to expose LatencyStore within a zarr.testing.storage namespace. That still requires a PR though (which could be this one), because it's currently in zarr.testing.store, and not documented in the public API docs.