TST: Fix xfails for non-box maybe_promote on integer dtypes #28864
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
jbrockmendel
changed the title
jbrockmendel
commented
Oct 9, 2019
| if res_type.__name__ == "uint64": | ||
| # No idea why, but these (sometimes) do not compare as equal | ||
| assert ex_type.__name__ == "uint64" | ||
| elif res_type.__name__ == "ulonglong": |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@h-vetinari did you find a nicer way to handle these?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No, I didn't have to deal with ulonglong (pretty sure that's platform-specific).
h-vetinari
reviewed
Oct 10, 2019
| @@ -151,7 +151,17 @@ def _assert_match(result_fill_value, expected_fill_value): | |||
| # GH#23982/25425 require the same type in addition to equality/NA-ness | |||
| res_type = type(result_fill_value) | |||
| ex_type = type(expected_fill_value) | |||
| assert res_type == ex_type | |||
| if res_type.__name__ == "uint64": | |||
| # No idea why, but these (sometimes) do not compare as equal | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I believe this is numpy/numpy#12525 and related issues
| if res_type.__name__ == "uint64": | ||
| # No idea why, but these (sometimes) do not compare as equal | ||
| assert ex_type.__name__ == "uint64" | ||
| elif res_type.__name__ == "ulonglong": |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No, I didn't have to deal with ulonglong (pretty sure that's platform-specific).
|
thanks. I suspect this is technically an api internally, but we likely don't expose this to the user. This may also have some perf implications. But let's refactor this beast and remove the array stuff before doing any of that. |
|
Yah definitely time for a refactor/cleanup pass |
proost
pushed a commit
to proost/pandas
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 19, 2019
proost
pushed a commit
to proost/pandas
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 19, 2019
bongolegend
pushed a commit
to bongolegend/pandas
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 1, 2020
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
Orthogonal to other outstanding maybe_promote PRs.
This one required pretty significant changes to the code. Using
np.min_scalar_typeandnp.can_castcleans this up a bit, but it is still pretty verbose. AFAICT there is no clear way to make it shorter without significantly sacrificing clarity.In a follow-up I think L410-459 can be refactored out to a helper function. Waiting on that until I figure out the boxed=True cases, which are still troublesome.