feat: add stats/base/ndarray/dnanmskmax

[iampratik13]

type: pre_commit_static_analysis_report
description: Results of running static analysis checks when committing changes.
report:

task: lint_filenames status: passed
task: lint_editorconfig status: passed
task: lint_markdown status: passed
task: lint_package_json status: passed
task: lint_repl_help status: passed
task: lint_javascript_src status: passed
task: lint_javascript_cli status: na
task: lint_javascript_examples status: passed
task: lint_javascript_tests status: passed
task: lint_javascript_benchmarks status: passed
task: lint_python status: na
task: lint_r status: na
task: lint_c_src status: na
task: lint_c_examples status: na
task: lint_c_benchmarks status: na
task: lint_c_tests_fixtures status: na
task: lint_shell status: na
task: lint_typescript_declarations status: passed
task: lint_typescript_tests status: passed
task: lint_license_headers status: passed
Resolves None.

Description
What is the purpose of this pull request?

This pull request:

feat: add stats/base/ndarray/dnanmskmax

Related Issues

Does this pull request have any related issues?

This pull request has the following related issues:

None

Questions

Any questions for reviewers of this pull request?

No.

Other

Any other information relevant to this pull request? This may include screenshots, references, and/or implementation notes.

No.

Checklist

Please ensure the following tasks are completed before submitting this pull request.

• Read, understood, and followed the contributing guidelines.

AI Assistance

When authoring the changes proposed in this PR, did you use any kind of AI assistance?

• Yes
• No

If you answered "yes" above, how did you use AI assistance?

• Code generation (e.g., when writing an implementation or fixing a bug)
• Test/benchmark generation
• Documentation (including examples)
• Research and understanding

Disclosure

If you answered "yes" to using AI assistance, please provide a short disclosure indicating how you used AI assistance. This helps reviewers determine how much scrutiny to apply when reviewing your contribution. Example disclosures: "This PR was written primarily by Claude Code." or "I consulted ChatGPT to understand the codebase, but the proposed changes were fully authored manually by myself.".

{{TODO: add disclosure if applicable}}

---

@stdlib-js/reviewers

[stdlib-bot]

Coverage Report

Package	Statements	Branches	Functions	Lines
stats/base/ndarray/dnanmskmax	$\color{green}110/110$ $\color{green}+0.00%$	$\color{green}3/3$ $\color{green}+0.00%$	$\color{green}1/1$ $\color{green}+0.00%$	$\color{green}110/110$ $\color{green}+0.00%$

The above coverage report was generated for the changes in this PR.

[kgryte]

LGTM after clean-up. A couple of comments:

1. Ideally, we'd keep families of packages consistent. Meaning, how we document APIs should ideally be the same across similar packages. In this case, we've already added stats/base/ndarray/nanmskmax. Using the same language and descriptions (with small modification, such as "double-precision", etc) would go a long way toward such consistency. Accordingly, before adding a package, I suggest you first check whether similar packages have been added, and then consulting those for inspiration in terms of parameter and other descriptions.
2. In your tests, you failed to test whether values are actually masked. When authoring packages, I encourage you to think critically about behavior and testing toward those expectations. In this case, this package needed to do three things: 1) compute a maximum, 2) ignore NaN values, and 3) honor a mask. Your tests should reflect that contract.

[iampratik13]

@kgryte I’ll make sure to take care of that next time.