Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Correct assert_frame_equal doc string #22552
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
Correct assert_frame_equal doc string #22552
Changes from 2 commits
b8a7530
234cb53
62f29a0
0f8cb08
0019855
3c532ce
6a861d7
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
I think what we've been using in these cases is
{'equiv'} or bool
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.
IMO that is more confusing. e.g. it might imply I pass a set. I'm not sure it's worth a special case for when there is only one possible string value.
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.
what is your suggestion, just
'equiv' or bool, default 'equiv'
or something else? Besides being more consistent for the user, using the curly brackets in all cases would simplify parsing the types and adding validation and extracting stats. But if you are strongly in favor of not using them, I'm happy to merge this with it now, and see later on what's best when we implement that validation.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.
I think as it is above is good. It's maybe a little verbose but is very clear.
check_index_type : bool / string {'equiv'}, default 'equiv'
Happy to revisit if a standard emerges.
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 have the standard here: https://pandas.pydata.org/pandas-docs/stable/contributing_docstring.html#parameter-types
If you can use the first format I suggested, that would be great.
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.
Thanks. I have used your suggestion.