-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 18.5k
ENH: Add support for ea dtypes in merge #49876
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
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
19 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
2b0e85e
ENH: Compile Factorizer class for all numeric dtypes
phofl 6969a80
Fix test
phofl d329b0b
Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/main' into factorizer
phofl 61a5928
Fix test
phofl 85d6c2e
Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/main' into factorizer
phofl 197f7d8
Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/main' into factorizer
phofl 07429b7
Implement merge for masked arrays
phofl e167068
Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/main' into merge_factorize_dtypes
phofl 126fa68
Fix bugs
phofl 6dffb54
Add asv
phofl cdfd04d
Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/main' into merge_factorize_dtypes
phofl 5dfd7cd
Add tests
phofl 711b91a
Fix overflow tests
phofl 458b81d
Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/main' into merge_factorize_dtypes
phofl eead959
Add versionner
phofl 38d558c
Add versionner
phofl 832ed52
Remove dtypes
phofl 5185a33
Remove versioneer
phofl 899d667
Remove fixture
phofl 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
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.
Instead of all of the if checks can we set up another function or class to dispatch to that handles this more gracefully? I think ideally could also eliminate the need for the factorizer dict
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.
Sure, but would prefer to do this as a follow up.
Getting rid of the dict is probably not easy if doable at all
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.
If not for the dict at least all these if checks I think should be wrapped in a separate function. We are losing a good bit of abstraction here compared to the previous code
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.
Yep this makes sense, but as I said would prefer doing this as a follow up.