Skip to content

DOC: Fixes after #17482 #17554

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Sep 17, 2017
Merged

DOC: Fixes after #17482 #17554

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion doc/source/whatsnew/v0.21.0.txt
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -363,7 +363,7 @@ Additionally, DataFrames with datetime columns that were parsed by :func:`read_s
Consistency of Range Functions
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

In previous versions, there were some inconsistencies between the various range functions: func:`date_range`, func:`bdate_range`, func:`cdate_range`, func:`period_range`, func:`timedelta_range`, and func:`interval_range`. (:issue:`17471`).
In previous versions, there were some inconsistencies between the various range functions: :func:`date_range`, :func:`bdate_range`, :func:`cdate_range`, :func:`period_range`, :func:`timedelta_range`, and :func:`interval_range`. (:issue:`17471`).

One of the inconsistent behaviors occurred when the ``start``, ``end`` and ``period`` parameters were all specified, potentially leading to ambiguous ranges. When all three parameters were passed, ``interval_range`` ignored the ``period`` parameter, ``period_range`` ignored the ``end`` parameter, and the other range functions raised. To promote consistency among the range functions, and avoid potentially ambiguous ranges, ``interval_range`` and ``period_range`` will now raise when all three parameters are passed.

Expand Down
3 changes: 2 additions & 1 deletion pandas/core/api.py
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -16,7 +16,8 @@
PeriodIndex, NaT)
from pandas.core.indexes.period import Period, period_range, pnow
from pandas.core.indexes.timedeltas import Timedelta, timedelta_range
from pandas.core.indexes.datetimes import Timestamp, date_range, bdate_range
from pandas.core.indexes.datetimes import (Timestamp, date_range, bdate_range,
cdate_range)
from pandas.core.indexes.interval import Interval, interval_range

from pandas.core.series import Series
Expand Down
9 changes: 2 additions & 7 deletions pandas/core/indexes/datetimes.py
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -2094,13 +2094,8 @@ def bdate_range(start=None, end=None, periods=None, freq='B', tz=None,
def cdate_range(start=None, end=None, periods=None, freq='C', tz=None,
normalize=True, name=None, closed=None, **kwargs):
"""
**EXPERIMENTAL** Return a fixed frequency DatetimeIndex, with
CustomBusinessDay as the default frequency

.. warning:: EXPERIMENTAL

The CustomBusinessDay class is not officially supported and the API is
likely to change in future versions. Use this at your own risk.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I also don't think we should remove this, unless we also remove the actual 'experimental' status of the CustomBusinessDay itself (which might be OK to do, I just don't know it)

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Okay, once we reach a consensus, I can either add this back or remove the additional warnings.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yes this is ok
we have had this for quite a long time

Return a fixed frequency DatetimeIndex, with CustomBusinessDay as the
default frequency

Parameters
----------
Expand Down
6 changes: 4 additions & 2 deletions pandas/core/indexes/interval.py
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -1094,7 +1094,8 @@ def interval_range(start=None, end=None, periods=None, freq=None,

Additionally, datetime-like input is also supported.

>>> pd.interval_range(start='2017-01-01', end='2017-01-04')
>>> pd.interval_range(start=pd.Timestamp('2017-01-01'),
end=pd.Timestamp('2017-01-04'))
IntervalIndex([(2017-01-01, 2017-01-02], (2017-01-02, 2017-01-03],
(2017-01-03, 2017-01-04]]
closed='right', dtype='interval[datetime64[ns]]')
Expand All @@ -1110,7 +1111,8 @@ def interval_range(start=None, end=None, periods=None, freq=None,
Similarly, for datetime-like ``start`` and ``end``, the frequency must be
convertible to a DateOffset.

>>> pd.interval_range(start='2017-01-01', periods=3, freq='MS')
>>> pd.interval_range(start=pd.Timestamp('2017-01-01'),
periods=3, freq='MS')
IntervalIndex([(2017-01-01, 2017-02-01], (2017-02-01, 2017-03-01],
(2017-03-01, 2017-04-01]]
closed='right', dtype='interval[datetime64[ns]]')
Expand Down
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion pandas/tests/api/test_api.py
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -63,7 +63,7 @@ class TestPDApi(Base):
# top-level functions
funcs = ['bdate_range', 'concat', 'crosstab', 'cut',
'date_range', 'interval_range', 'eval',
'factorize', 'get_dummies',
'factorize', 'get_dummies', 'cdate_range',
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think cdate_range needs to be in api.rst as well?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

that's the issue being solved here: it was already added to api.rst in a previous PR, but wasn't actually yet included in the api

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

ok great

'infer_freq', 'isna', 'isnull', 'lreshape',
'melt', 'notna', 'notnull', 'offsets',
'merge', 'merge_ordered', 'merge_asof',
Expand Down