PR Review: Validate planar cell size in slope() (#2897)

Blockers (must fix before merge)

None.

Suggestions (should fix, not blocking)

None.

Nits (optional improvements)

• slope.py:406-414 The guard uses cellsize_x <= 0 while the sibling guard in curvature.py:256-263 uses cellsize_x == 0. The divergence is deliberate: issue #2897 asks slope to reject negative resolutions too, and a negative cell size would silently flip the slope sign. A one-line comment would stop a future reader from "harmonizing" the two guards back to == 0.
• test_slope.py:483-520 The four backend-specific parametrized tests are near-identical. Validation runs in the wrapper before dispatch, so the numpy test alone already covers the code path. The cupy/dask variants are cheap insurance that no backend swallows the error, so keeping them is fine; they could be collapsed if the file grows.

What looks good

• The check sits in the public wrapper before ArrayTypeFunctionMapping dispatch, so all four backends behave the same without per-backend code. Matches the curvature.py precedent.
• NaN/inf ordering is correct: not np.isfinite(...) is evaluated first via or, so NaN never reaches the <= 0 comparison (which is False for NaN and would let it through).
• The geodesic path is left untouched, with an explicit test confirming a bogus res attribute does not trip the planar guard.
• The error message names the offending values and says how to fix the resolution, in the curvature.py message style.
• Tests hit zero, negative, NaN, and inf on each axis independently, plus a positive-cellsize regression test.

Checklist

• Algorithm matches reference/paper (no algorithm change; validation only)
• All implemented backends produce consistent results (validation is backend-agnostic, runs in wrapper)
• NaN handling is correct
• Edge cases are covered by tests
• Dask chunk boundaries handled correctly (unchanged; guard runs before dispatch)
• No premature materialization or unnecessary copies
• Benchmark exists or is not needed (validation guard, no perf impact)
• README feature matrix updated (not applicable; no new function or backend change)
• Docstrings present and accurate

Follow-up review (after f1a5eab)

The single actionable nit from the previous pass is resolved: slope.py now carries a one-line comment explaining why the guard uses <= 0 (rejecting negatives) where curvature() uses == 0. No new code paths, so the earlier checklist still holds.

The second nit (collapsing the four near-identical backend tests) is left as-is on purpose. The cupy and dask variants are cheap and confirm no backend wrapper swallows the error before it reaches the user. Collapsing them would trade that coverage for a few saved lines, which is not worth it here.

No remaining blockers or suggestions.