-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 18.4k
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.
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
ERR: FutureWarning difficult to identify source #26431
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ 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
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
Codecov Report
@@ 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
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
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Outdated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`) |
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.
don't need a note for this
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.
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?
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 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
thanks @simonjayhawkins keep em coming! |
git diff upstream/master -u -- "*.py" | flake8 --diff