Skip to content

Added links to useful discussions of groupby and SettingWithCopyWarning #21916

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

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from
Closed

Conversation

supern8ent
Copy link

@supern8ent supern8ent commented Jul 14, 2018

Added links to useful discussions of groupby and SettingWithCopyWarning.

Did not run tests as only docs changed, but python make.py --single groupby and python make.py --single indexing successfully create the respective html files.

Nathan Lloyd added 2 commits July 14, 2018 15:15
@jschendel jschendel added the Docs label Jul 15, 2018
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jul 15, 2018

Codecov Report

Merging #21916 into master will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Impacted file tree graph

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master   #21916   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   91.96%   91.96%           
=======================================
  Files         166      166           
  Lines       50323    50323           
=======================================
  Hits        46281    46281           
  Misses       4042     4042
Flag Coverage Δ
#multiple 90.36% <ø> (ø) ⬆️
#single 42.23% <ø> (ø) ⬆️

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 2b51c96...927d7c8. Read the comment docs.

@jreback
Copy link
Contributor

jreback commented Jul 16, 2018

worth adding some text / examples from the blog as well?

@datapythonista

@jreback jreback added this to the 0.24.0 milestone Jul 16, 2018
@datapythonista
Copy link
Member

I'm unsure about adding many links to third parties in the documentation. If a blog is clearer than the documentation, I think we should improve the documentation as a preferred practice.

@supern8ent what do you think it's missing in the docs that those links clarify?

@supern8ent
Copy link
Author

@datapythonista Honestly I was at my first sprint and just looking for a doc issue to squash. I agree that it's better to improve the documentation than link, but I can't answer your question (what specifically is missing) since it wasn't my idea in the first place.

@jreback I suggest rejecting the PR and clarifying issue 17505 a bit.

@jreback
Copy link
Contributor

jreback commented Jul 17, 2018

I thought some is the prose and examples in the blog were pretty clear. might be worth cribbing from it

@supern8ent
Copy link
Author

Ok, just including links is not preferred. Better to use those works as a reference to improve pandas documentation.

@supern8ent supern8ent closed this Jul 17, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

DOC: nice links / examples for setting with copy & aggregation
4 participants