Skip to content

remove datetime.pxd #18654

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.

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 3 commits into from
Dec 7, 2017
Merged

remove datetime.pxd #18654

merged 3 commits into from
Dec 7, 2017

Conversation

jbrockmendel
Copy link
Member

There is an unrelated 2-line edit in hashing.pyx that gets rid of a compiler warning.

Copy link
Contributor

@jreback jreback left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

lgtm ping on green

@@ -71,3 +75,6 @@ cdef int64_t pydate_to_dt64(date val, pandas_datetimestruct *dts)
cdef npy_datetime get_datetime64_value(object obj) nogil
cdef npy_timedelta get_timedelta64_value(object obj) nogil
cdef PANDAS_DATETIMEUNIT get_datetime64_unit(object obj) nogil

cdef int _string_to_dts(object val, pandas_datetimestruct* dts,
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

can deprivatize at some point

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yah I’m currently running asv on a proposed change to string_to_dts that would make to_datetime and Timestamp behavior more similar (or at least make the dissimilarity more obvious)

@jreback jreback added Clean Datetime Datetime data dtype labels Dec 6, 2017
@jreback jreback added this to the 0.22.0 milestone Dec 6, 2017
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 6, 2017

Codecov Report

Merging #18654 into master will decrease coverage by 0.01%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master   #18654      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   91.57%   91.55%   -0.02%     
==========================================
  Files         153      153              
  Lines       51210    51221      +11     
==========================================
+ Hits        46894    46896       +2     
- Misses       4316     4325       +9
Flag Coverage Δ
#multiple 89.41% <ø> (ø) ⬆️
#single 40.67% <ø> (-0.11%) ⬇️
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
pandas/io/gbq.py 25% <0%> (-58.34%) ⬇️
pandas/core/frame.py 97.81% <0%> (-0.1%) ⬇️
pandas/plotting/_timeseries.py 60.73% <0%> (-0.1%) ⬇️
pandas/tseries/offsets.py 96.86% <0%> (-0.09%) ⬇️
pandas/plotting/_compat.py 62% <0%> (ø) ⬆️
pandas/io/parquet.py 65.38% <0%> (ø) ⬆️
pandas/core/indexes/datetimes.py 95.68% <0%> (ø) ⬆️
pandas/core/indexes/base.py 96.45% <0%> (+0.01%) ⬆️
pandas/core/indexes/period.py 92.94% <0%> (+0.04%) ⬆️

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 fdba133...64fceda. Read the comment docs.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 6, 2017

Codecov Report

Merging #18654 into master will decrease coverage by 0.01%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master   #18654      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   91.57%   91.55%   -0.02%     
==========================================
  Files         153      153              
  Lines       51210    51210              
==========================================
- Hits        46894    46885       -9     
- Misses       4316     4325       +9
Flag Coverage Δ
#multiple 89.41% <ø> (ø) ⬆️
#single 40.67% <ø> (-0.11%) ⬇️
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
pandas/io/gbq.py 25% <0%> (-58.34%) ⬇️
pandas/core/frame.py 97.81% <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 fdba133...64fceda. Read the comment docs.

@jbrockmendel
Copy link
Member Author

Ping


cdef inline int _string_to_dts(object val, pandas_datetimestruct* dts,
int* out_local, int* out_tzoffset) except? -1:
cdef:
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

when you do change this, pls add doc-string (and same below)

cdef inline int _cstring_to_dts(char *val, int length,
pandas_datetimestruct* dts,
int* out_local, int* out_tzoffset) except? -1:
# Note: without this "extra layer" between _string_to_dts
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

have to investigate this, it is pretty weird

@jreback jreback merged commit d916351 into pandas-dev:master Dec 7, 2017
@jreback
Copy link
Contributor

jreback commented Dec 7, 2017

thanks! pls make note of those 2 comments above on your list.

@jbrockmendel jbrockmendel deleted the remove_datetime branch December 7, 2017 02:10
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Clean Datetime Datetime data dtype
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants