DOC: whatsnew 0.24.0 corrections & edits & remove some warnings #24298
Conversation
|
Hello @jreback! Thanks for updating the PR.
Comment last updated on December 15, 2018 at 22:18 Hours UTC |
pandas/core/indexes/accessors.py
Outdated
| @@ -289,7 +289,7 @@ class PeriodProperties(Properties): | |||
| """ | |||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
| class CombinedDatetimelikeProperties(DatetimeProperties, TimedeltaProperties): | |||
| class CombinedDatetimelikeProperties(DatetimeProperties, TimedeltaProperties, PeriodProperties): | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
period properties weren't availble on Series
|
@datapythonista @TomAugspurger if any comments. |
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #24298 +/- ##
===========================================
- Coverage 92.28% 43.01% -49.27%
===========================================
Files 162 162
Lines 51827 51827
===========================================
- Hits 47827 22292 -25535
- Misses 4000 29535 +25535
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #24298 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 92.28% 92.28% -0.01%
==========================================
Files 162 162
Lines 51831 51831
==========================================
- Hits 47832 47831 -1
- Misses 3999 4000 +1
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
doc/source/api.rst
Outdated
|
|
||
| DatetimeIndex.argsort | ||
| DatetimeIndex.searchsorted | ||
| DatetimeIndex.sort_values |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why are you adding those?
(they are not datetime-specific)
Was it to remove certain warnings?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think they should be showing up in the DatetimeIndex class summary, since they aren't explicitly listed there under Methods.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
we have links in the whatsnew that need references, otherwise they don't go anywhere, e.g. :func:`DatetimeIndex.searchsorted`
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Does adding them to the api.rst fix the references? Or do you need to also add them to the methods section in the DatetimeIndex docstring?
An alternative is something like "Fixed bug in :meth:`Index.searchsorted` for indexes with datetime values." would work.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
adding to api.rst fixes this.
Does adding them to the api.rst fix the references? Or do you need to also add them to the methods section in the DatetimeIndex docstring?
What exactly do we guarantee with this? (answer is I am not sure)
"Fixed bug in :meth:
Index.searchsorted
this would work as well. But, we currently don't have a method to check this (except visually).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
After the release I'll dust off #22743, which will fail the doc build if there are any warnings. So these kind of linking to a method that isn't in our API docs would have been caught when the PR was made.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ok I reverted most of the additions and changed the refs. To be clear, I think this is actually a bug in that an invalid :meth: or :func: is not a warning if its misformatted, but I also think it is not warning when we just a sub-class of Index, but it doesn't render (the link). @datapythonista
jreback
force-pushed
the
whatnew
branch
2 times, most recently
from
a177c45 to
7ce9c83
Compare
|
He may be unavailable this week. Taking a look now. |
|
pushed |
|
LGTM. Thanks for tracking all these down. |
…as-dev#24298) * DOC: whatsnew 0.24.0 corrections & edits & remove some warnings * review * revert api refernces * typos
…as-dev#24298) * DOC: whatsnew 0.24.0 corrections & edits & remove some warnings * review * revert api refernces * typos
No description provided.