-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 18.4k
BUG: cut with non-nano #56101
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
BUG: cut with non-nano #56101
Changes from 8 commits
Commits
Show all changes
12 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
054204f
BUG: IntervalIndex.factorize with non-nano
jbrockmendel e45d07d
GH ref
jbrockmendel b9caa5c
BUG: cut with non-nano
jbrockmendel 8dab197
GH ref
jbrockmendel 231101b
mypy fixup
jbrockmendel 6b17b63
Merge branch 'main' into bug-cut-non-nano
jbrockmendel 72bca9d
mypy fixup
jbrockmendel da1e76b
Merge branch 'main' into bug-cut-non-nano
jbrockmendel 1fa7027
Merge branch 'main' into bug-cut-non-nano
jbrockmendel fd41598
Update comment
jbrockmendel 4c5d138
simplify
jbrockmendel e72840d
Merge branch 'main' into bug-cut-non-nano
jbrockmendel 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
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.
If these are inclusive, left bin edge and in nanos the result was 7.2, I think I would expect 7 instead of 8
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.
looking at this closer, i think it doesn't really matter bc
bins[0]
is calculated roughly onmin(data) - .001 * (max(data) - min(data))
. that.001 * [...]
adjustment looks intended to make sure that the bottom bin is a strict lower bound. Exactly how strict doesn't seem to matter. In this test case, max(data) - min(data) is a 2-day Timedelta, and when that Timedelta has second unit, multiplying it by .001 truncated toTimedelta(minutes=2, seconds=52)
, truncating the .8 seconds.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.
Ah I forgot about the 0.001 offset applied to the edges (though it seem code-smelly). The current truncation result should be OK then