Skip to content

ERR: FutureWarning difficult to identify source #26431

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Merged
merged 2 commits into from
May 18, 2019
Merged

ERR: FutureWarning difficult to identify source #26431

merged 2 commits into from
May 18, 2019

Conversation

simonjayhawkins
Copy link
Member

@simonjayhawkins simonjayhawkins commented May 16, 2019 •
edited
Loading

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented May 16, 2019

Codecov Report

Merging #26431 into master will decrease coverage by <.01%.
The diff coverage is 100%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master   #26431      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   91.73%   91.72%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         174      174              
  Lines       50741    50741              
==========================================
- Hits        46548    46544       -4     
- Misses       4193     4197       +4
Flag Coverage Δ
#multiple 90.23% <100%> (ø) ⬆️
#single 41.68% <0%> (-0.12%) ⬇️
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
pandas/core/indexes/datetimes.py 96.85% <100%> (ø) ⬆️
pandas/io/gbq.py 78.94% <0%> (-10.53%) ⬇️
pandas/core/frame.py 97.02% <0%> (-0.12%) ⬇️

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 1263e1a...f5a63f5. Read the comment docs.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented May 16, 2019 •
edited
Loading

Codecov Report

Merging #26431 into master will decrease coverage by <.01%.
The diff coverage is 100%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master   #26431      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   91.73%   91.72%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         174      174              
  Lines       50741    50739       -2     
==========================================
- Hits        46548    46542       -6     
- Misses       4193     4197       +4
Flag Coverage Δ
#multiple 90.23% <100%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
#single 41.68% <0%> (-0.12%) ⬇️
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
pandas/core/indexes/datetimes.py 96.85% <100%> (ø) ⬆️
pandas/io/gbq.py 78.94% <0%> (-10.53%) ⬇️
pandas/core/frame.py 97.02% <0%> (-0.12%) ⬇️
pandas/core/base.py 97.99% <0%> (-0.01%) ⬇️

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 1263e1a...1b3bdbf. Read the comment docs.

@TomAugspurger TomAugspurger added the Error Reporting Incorrect or improved errors from pandas label May 16, 2019
@TomAugspurger TomAugspurger added this to the 0.25.0 milestone May 16, 2019
jreback
jreback requested changes May 17, 2019
View reviewed changes
doc/source/whatsnew/v0.25.0.rst Outdated
@@ -332,6 +332,7 @@ Timezones
- Bug in :func:`to_datetime` where an uninformative ``RuntimeError`` was raised when passing a naive :class:`Timestamp` with datetime strings with mixed UTC offsets (:issue:`25978`)
- Bug in :func:`to_datetime` with ``unit='ns'`` would drop timezone information from the parsed argument (:issue:`26168`)
- Bug in :func:`DataFrame.join` where joining a timezone aware index with a timezone aware column would result in a column of ``NaN`` (:issue:`26335`)
- FutureWarning message raised by :func:`DatetimeIndex.to_series` updated to identify source of warning (:issue:`26329`)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

don't need a note for this

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Meta-question: with review requests like this, is it better to just merge? I also thought that the note was unnecessary, but the "harm" of this note is small. Maybe better to just merge, and reduce CI burden / risk of a merge conflict coming up?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

i don’t think the ci burden is relevant here
we are pretty fast now adays
and better to fix things even small typos on the first go
as once things are merged it is almost impossible to see that something is amiss

@jreback jreback merged commit 7ee26a8 into pandas-dev:master May 18, 2019
@jreback
Copy link
Contributor

jreback commented May 18, 2019

thanks @simonjayhawkins keep em coming!

@simonjayhawkins simonjayhawkins deleted the keep_tz-future-warning-message branch May 18, 2019 21:18
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@TomAugspurger TomAugspurger TomAugspurger approved these changes

@jreback jreback jreback approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
Error Reporting Incorrect or improved errors from pandas
Projects
None yet
Milestone
0.25.0
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

FutureWarning difficult to identify source
3 participants
@simonjayhawkins @jreback @TomAugspurger