-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 18.4k
Added Datetime & Timedelta inference to array #24571
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
Added Datetime & Timedelta inference to array #24571
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #24571 +/- ##
===========================================
- Coverage 92.31% 43.07% -49.25%
===========================================
Files 166 166
Lines 52556 52563 +7
===========================================
- Hits 48518 22640 -25878
- Misses 4038 29923 +25885
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #24571 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 92.31% 92.31% +<.01%
==========================================
Files 166 166
Lines 52556 52563 +7
==========================================
+ Hits 48518 48526 +8
+ Misses 4038 4037 -1
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
lgtm. let's waiting on things though till we have fixed windows CI. |
Can tm.to_array be replaced with pd.array then? |
Replacing that turned up an issue with non-ns datetime64 / timedelta64
values. Pushing a fix for that in a bit.
…On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 3:24 PM jbrockmendel ***@***.***> wrote:
Can tm.to_array be replaced with pd.array then?
—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#24571 (comment)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABQHIoLf1SAvahB-3lBlaUcmz80qCt5Aks5u_SN2gaJpZM4ZnKb5>
.
|
3d9cebe fixes the datetime / timedelta
issue.
pd.array isn't a drop-in replacement for tm.to_array, since to_array
returns an ndarray for non-special cased dtypes.
On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 3:43 PM Tom Augspurger <[email protected]>
wrote:
… Replacing that turned up an issue with non-ns datetime64 / timedelta64
values. Pushing a fix for that in a bit.
On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 3:24 PM jbrockmendel ***@***.***>
wrote:
> Can tm.to_array be replaced with pd.array then?
>
> —
> You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <#24571 (comment)>,
> or mute the thread
> <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABQHIoLf1SAvahB-3lBlaUcmz80qCt5Aks5u_SN2gaJpZM4ZnKb5>
> .
>
|
@jbrockmendel but maybe should use its as much as possible (e.g. hit the special cases, else hit pd.array) |
Agreed. I tried that briefly, and things failed (haven't looked deeply yet). Not sure if it's a bug in pd.array or different semantics for tm.to_array. |
thanks @TomAugspurger |
Closes #24568