-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 18.4k
TYP: pandas/core/dtypes/base.py #31352
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
WillAyd
merged 14 commits into
pandas-dev:master
from
simonjayhawkins:pandas/core/dtypes/base.py
Feb 12, 2020
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
14 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
3b4f1a2
TYP: pandas/core/dtypes/base.py
simonjayhawkins 3118fbe
Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/master' into pandas/core/dtype…
simonjayhawkins e99b84c
revert changes to construct_from_string
simonjayhawkins 9587fd1
Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/master' into pandas/core/dtype…
simonjayhawkins 4932799
Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/master' into pandas/core/dtype…
simonjayhawkins 1a14565
mypy fixup
simonjayhawkins f092711
Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/master' into pandas/core/dtype…
simonjayhawkins fac519c
Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/master' into pandas/core/dtype…
simonjayhawkins fddfabf
Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/master' into pandas/core/dtype…
simonjayhawkins 89e4f56
revert changes to pandas/core/dtypes/dtypes.py
simonjayhawkins b9385d7
Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/master' into pandas/core/dtype…
simonjayhawkins 11b1b53
Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/master' into pandas/core/dtype…
simonjayhawkins 9f09895
Merge branch 'pandas/core/dtypes/base.py' of github.com:simonjayhawki…
simonjayhawkins cf9691f
Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/master' into pandas/core/dtype…
simonjayhawkins 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
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.
Did we ever decide on consistent use of Any vs object here? Thought we were using object but maybe missed that
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.
in this class we already have
def __eq__(self, other: Any) -> bool:
and in #29947,Any
was applied throughout.I think it should be
object
in order to check the body of the__eq__
/__ne__
methods, but since we want consistency these will need to be changed as well...__eq__
__ne__
However, doing this raises issues with Extension Array equalities, see #31646. So should be done in a separate PR, I think though that this does affirm the need to use
object
instead ofAny
for more thorough checking.