-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 18.5k
ENH: Add ignore_index to sort_index #30578
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
Merged
jreback
merged 11 commits into
pandas-dev:master
from
charlesdong1991:add_ignore_index_sort_index
Jan 3, 2020
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
11 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
7e461a1
remove \n from docstring
charlesdong1991 1314059
fix conflicts
charlesdong1991 8bcb313
Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/master'
charlesdong1991 2f36225
Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/master' into add_ignore_index_…
charlesdong1991 c03ed13
Add ignore index to sort index
charlesdong1991 4a9c645
Add whatsnew note
charlesdong1991 7a2651e
Add space to make docstring pass
charlesdong1991 85cb197
code change on reviews
charlesdong1991 15ab36c
fix conflict
charlesdong1991 bb6fee4
test change based on WA reviews
charlesdong1991 d4f787a
remove bool_t
charlesdong1991 File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
can inplace be parameterised easily
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.
emm, i think in this case, if using parameterization, might not look very clean and less readable
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 think this should be parametrized - what do you think makes it less readable?
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.
ok with trying parameterize as a followup, as for .sort_values and .duplicated these tests look very much like 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.
emm, okay! i thought with
inplace
beingTure
, we do not need to do something likedf = df.sort_index(inplace=True)
, butFalse
needs to be like this, and testing object will be different, one is testing if original changes, another is to test if assigned new df is changed.Sorry to bring up discussion here, it definitely can be parametrized, was just my preference on such case. I will parametrize all three methods in the follow-up PR for sure!