-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 18.4k
implement Timedelta mod, divmod, rmod, rdivmod, fix and test scalar methods #19365
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
Changes from 9 commits
4688064
baf4d6b
a2b1ac7
8224871
9558dc9
f838cc9
cd421db
ed99f50
1ace838
0de3bd4
acff328
73fd6dc
4cbb2e1
08fa8fd
03b7e17
120d61f
c1fbdc9
b2995c9
c22dc47
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -283,6 +283,18 @@ Rounded division (floor-division) of a ``timedelta64[ns]`` Series by a scalar | |
td // pd.Timedelta(days=3, hours=4) | ||
pd.Timedelta(days=3, hours=4) // td | ||
|
||
The mod (%) and divmod operations are defined for ``Timedelta`` when operating with another timedelta-like or with a numeric argument. | ||
|
||
.. ipython:: python | ||
|
||
pd.Timedelta(hours=37) % datetime.timedelta(hours=2) | ||
|
||
# divmod against a timedelta-like returns a pair (int, Timedelta) | ||
divmod(datetime.timedelta(hours=2), pd.Timedelta(minutes=11)) | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. give a comment or 2 hear, a dense block of code is not very friendly There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. just give 2 examples not need to have every case covered There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. don't show the array case, I find that unfriendly |
||
|
||
# divmod against a numeric returns a pair (Timedelta, Timedelta) | ||
pd.Timedelta(hours=25) % 86400000000000 | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. missing the divmod here |
||
|
||
Attributes | ||
---------- | ||
|
||
|
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -117,6 +117,25 @@ resetting indexes. See the :ref:`Sorting by Indexes and Values | |
# Sort by 'second' (index) and 'A' (column) | ||
df_multi.sort_values(by=['second', 'A']) | ||
|
||
.. _whatsnew_0230.enhancements.timedelta_mod | ||
|
||
Timedelta mod method | ||
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ | ||
|
||
``mod`` (%) and ``divmod`` operations are now defined on ``Timedelta`` objects when operating with either timedelta-like or with numeric arguments. (:issue:`19365`) | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. you can put in a reference to the docs in the timedelta section. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I'm unclear on what this means. |
||
|
||
.. ipython:: python | ||
|
||
td = pd.Timedelta(hours=37) | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. show the td, then in another ipython block show operations on it. |
||
td | ||
|
||
Current Behavior | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. you don't need the Current Behavior here (as there isn't any previous) |
||
|
||
.. ipython:: python | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. this is repetetive |
||
|
||
td % pd.Timedelta(hours=2) | ||
divmod(td, np.array([2, 3], dtype='timedelta64[h]')) | ||
|
||
.. _whatsnew_0230.enhancements.ran_inf: | ||
|
||
``.rank()`` handles ``inf`` values when ``NaN`` are present | ||
|
@@ -438,6 +457,7 @@ Other API Changes | |
- Set operations (union, difference...) on :class:`IntervalIndex` with incompatible index types will now raise a ``TypeError`` rather than a ``ValueError`` (:issue:`19329`) | ||
- :class:`DateOffset` objects render more simply, e.g. "<DateOffset: days=1>" instead of "<DateOffset: kwds={'days': 1}>" (:issue:`19403`) | ||
- :func:`pandas.merge` provides a more informative error message when trying to merge on timezone-aware and timezone-naive columns (:issue:`15800`) | ||
- :func:`Timedelta.__mod__`, :func:`Timedelta.__divmod__` now accept timedelta-like and numeric arguments instead of raising ``TypeError`` (:issue:`19365`) | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. you are covering this above, don't repeat There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. As in remove this line entirely b/c the "Timedelta mod method" section above exists? |
||
|
||
.. _whatsnew_0230.deprecations: | ||
|
||
|
@@ -552,6 +572,7 @@ Datetimelike | |
- Bug in comparison of :class:`DatetimeIndex` against ``None`` or ``datetime.date`` objects raising ``TypeError`` for ``==`` and ``!=`` comparisons instead of all-``False`` and all-``True``, respectively (:issue:`19301`) | ||
- | ||
|
||
|
||
Timezones | ||
^^^^^^^^^ | ||
|
||
|
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -492,7 +492,14 @@ def _binary_op_method_timedeltalike(op, name): | |
if other.dtype.kind not in ['m', 'M']: | ||
# raise rathering than letting numpy return wrong answer | ||
return NotImplemented | ||
return op(self.to_timedelta64(), other) | ||
result = op(self.to_timedelta64(), other) | ||
if other.ndim == 0: | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Wouldn't be cleaner to do There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I think that would be about a wash because we also need to handle the case where other is a 0-dim datetime64 array. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Isn't that already catched by the There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. And from this it seems it is indeed already working correctly:
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Yah there's some ambiguity there. The 0-dim case to watch out for is (under master, fixed in the PR):
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I could see a reasonable argument that the zero-dim array op should return a zero-dim array (i.e. not a Timedelta like the PR changes it to), but given that it returns a scalar, I think the consistent thing to do is always return a Timestamp/Timedelta.
As long as we a) aren't making spaghetti and b) are testing these new corner cases, I don't see much downside to fixing these. If there were some kind of LOC budget I'd agree with you that this would be a pretty low priority. (and if it will get this merged I'll revert this part, since this is blocking fixes to Index bugs) There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can you explain why this part would be reverted again, but is needed to be first merged? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Poor use of pronouns on my part. "This part" refers to the zero-dimensional arrays, and is not the bug that originally motivated this PR, but was found in the process of writing tests for this PR. "this is blocking" referred to the divmod/mod and 1-d array ops, which I need to have here before I can fix e.g. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I don't see any test you added that would catch this 0-dim array case. Would it be ok to just leave that out of this PR, and only fix the numpy timedelta64 scalar case? We can discuss how many lines of code are added and whether that is worth it, but checking the result type and the potentially converting the result, does add to the code complexity. I would rather add a There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I'm amenable to this suggestion, will update in a bit. FYI |
||
if other.dtype.kind == 'm': | ||
return Timedelta(result) | ||
if other.dtype.kind == 'M': | ||
from ..tslib import Timestamp | ||
return Timestamp(result) | ||
return result | ||
|
||
elif not _validate_ops_compat(other): | ||
return NotImplemented | ||
|
@@ -1046,7 +1053,10 @@ class Timedelta(_Timedelta): | |
def __mul__(self, other): | ||
if hasattr(other, 'dtype'): | ||
# ndarray-like | ||
return other * self.to_timedelta64() | ||
result = other * self.to_timedelta64() | ||
if other.ndim == 0: | ||
return Timedelta(result) | ||
return result | ||
|
||
elif other is NaT: | ||
return NaT | ||
|
@@ -1061,7 +1071,10 @@ class Timedelta(_Timedelta): | |
|
||
def __truediv__(self, other): | ||
if hasattr(other, 'dtype'): | ||
return self.to_timedelta64() / other | ||
result = self.to_timedelta64() / other | ||
if other.ndim == 0 and result.dtype.kind == 'm': | ||
return Timedelta(result) | ||
return result | ||
|
||
elif is_integer_object(other) or is_float_object(other): | ||
# integers or floats | ||
|
@@ -1077,7 +1090,10 @@ class Timedelta(_Timedelta): | |
|
||
def __rtruediv__(self, other): | ||
if hasattr(other, 'dtype'): | ||
return other / self.to_timedelta64() | ||
result = other / self.to_timedelta64() | ||
if other.ndim == 0 and result.dtype.kind == 'm': | ||
return Timedelta(result) | ||
return result | ||
|
||
elif not _validate_ops_compat(other): | ||
return NotImplemented | ||
|
@@ -1096,6 +1112,9 @@ class Timedelta(_Timedelta): | |
# just defer | ||
if hasattr(other, '_typ'): | ||
# Series, DataFrame, ... | ||
if other._typ == 'dateoffset' and hasattr(other, 'delta'): | ||
# Tick offset | ||
return self // other.delta | ||
return NotImplemented | ||
|
||
if hasattr(other, 'dtype'): | ||
|
@@ -1128,6 +1147,9 @@ class Timedelta(_Timedelta): | |
# just defer | ||
if hasattr(other, '_typ'): | ||
# Series, DataFrame, ... | ||
if other._typ == 'dateoffset' and hasattr(other, 'delta'): | ||
# Tick offset | ||
return other.delta // self | ||
return NotImplemented | ||
|
||
if hasattr(other, 'dtype'): | ||
|
@@ -1149,6 +1171,23 @@ class Timedelta(_Timedelta): | |
return np.nan | ||
return other.value // self.value | ||
|
||
def __mod__(self, other): | ||
# Naive implementation, room for optimization | ||
return self.__divmod__(other)[1] | ||
|
||
def __rmod__(self, other): | ||
# Naive implementation, room for optimization | ||
return self.__rdivmod__(other)[1] | ||
|
||
def __divmod__(self, other): | ||
# Naive implementation, room for optimization | ||
div = self // other | ||
return div, self - div * other | ||
|
||
def __rdivmod__(self, other): | ||
div = other // self | ||
return div, other - div * self | ||
|
||
|
||
cdef _floordiv(int64_t value, right): | ||
return value // right | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
add a ref tag here
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
You mean a "(:issue:
19365
)"?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
no a section reference
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Do you mean something like ".. _timedeltas.divmod:" after line 297?