algebra cleanup in FY5253 and Easter offsets

[jbrockmendel]

Same types of cleanups you've gotten used to seeing elsewhere, now applied to FY5253 and Easter. This should be orthogonal to others.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #18350 into master will decrease coverage by 0.01%.
The diff coverage is 90.69%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master   #18350      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   91.38%   91.37%   -0.02%     
==========================================
  Files         164      164              
  Lines       49790    49758      -32     
==========================================
- Hits        45501    45465      -36     
- Misses       4289     4293       +4

Flag	Coverage Δ
#multiple	89.17% <90.69%> (ø)	⬆️
#single	39.51% <0%> (-0.05%)	⬇️

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
pandas/tseries/offsets.py	97.2% <90.69%> (+0.28%)	⬆️
pandas/io/gbq.py	25% <0%> (-58.34%)	⬇️
pandas/core/frame.py	97.8% <0%> (-0.1%)	⬇️

---

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 cfad581...47fa1b9. Read the comment docs.

[jreback]

can we hit these in tests

[jbrockmendel]

It wasn't obvious to me how to hit it, so I left the note to try again next time around. (which will be soon. We're far from done with offsets PRs)

[gfyoung]

@jbrockmendel : If you don't mind explaining, how do you know that this particular branch isn't hit? What about the other branches?

[gfyoung]

BTW, the changes themselves look OK but would like to get some more color on the questions I just posed to you before merging.

[jbrockmendel]

Put in a bunch of assert false statements as a quick coverage check. All the others were hit.

[gfyoung]

Ah, I see. From which test files did those assert false failures then originate?

[jbrockmendel]

Almost certainly tests.tseries.offsets.test_offsets

[gfyoung]

Okay, sounds good. Have a look at those tests once I merge to see how we can increase coverage in this section of logic.

[jbrockmendel]

I think there's one more algebra/cleanup after this, then we're jumping into bugfixes.

[jreback]

I doubt we have very many tests for this. @gfyoung can you have a look and see if the changes look ok.

[gfyoung]

@jreback : I'll take a look later this evening. If all looks good, can I just merge this?

[jreback]

yep

[jbrockmendel]

#14774 has a use case that hits one of the existing assert False statements (i.e. not one of the ones discussed above for coverage checks). I'll take a look at that after this gets closed.

[gfyoung]

@jbrockmendel : Merged and closed. Thanks!