-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 151
Fix: proper return types for MultiIndex.swaplevel & MultiIndex.union #1437
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
Conversation
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.
Please look for test_multiindex to place the tests. I think you need to add one or more new test functions in tests/indexes/test_indexes.py.
|
Thank you for the feedback! I will work on that shortly. |
|
I've tried my best to spend a bit of time unpacking this. Ultimately, I didn't think it was best to include all types of Index in the overload because not all types of Index are valid to union with MultiIndex (only those with tuples). Referring to tuples within Indexes wasn't supported so I had to add that support in Happy to adjust recognising that Dr-Irv never mentioned any issue with using the complete Index type. Additionally, I've attempted to add a test in |
|
I can see now that all checks have failed, looks related to my extension of S1 (in adding support for |
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.
- You can mark the PR as a draft if you plan to work on it for a while.
- Just click
Re-request reviewon the top-right corner of the PR when you are done.
- Just click
- Please run
pre-commitlocally to avoid simple mistakes - Please use
poeto do further tests locally, e.g.poe test_all
|
Ended up removing MultiIndex-Index unions from assumption for returning a MultiIndex - was causing too many problems and Dr-Irv said it was okay to ignore. It was either violating the overload standard or confusing mypy in testing. swaplevel tests added, MultiIndex tests removed some cases relating to different types of Indexes (since we no longer try checking for those), and S1 changes reverted. |
|
I'm not sure why it failed. I ran Running the test case locally individually it failed, seems to be a runtime error because Pandas won't accept an Index unionising a MultiIndex (as it should). Removing that test case. |
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.
Please also run pre-commit locally.
My mistake. I had ran a pre-commit after committing, and didn't commit the refactoring it made. |
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.
Great, now all checks pass. We are almost there.
Co-authored-by: Yi-Fan Wang <cmp0xff@users.noreply.github.com>
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.
Just two small things.
- In addition please also fix
mypytype checking and furtherpoechecks.
Co-authored-by: Yi-Fan Wang <cmp0xff@users.noreply.github.com>
Removing the overload of union from the MultiIndex class and instead setting MultiIndex to return Self caused a few existing tests to fail. I would prefer to reinstate the overload to maintain the existing test behaviour, but I could alternatively just modify the existing tests. Which would you prefer? |
|
I believe your changes actually improve the typing in the exising tests, if you take a look. So you can update the static and runtime typing checks in the tests. In the stubs file for |
Edit: Nevermind, figured out how to ignore the error. |
|
I don't understand. |
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.
Thank you @realzachbrownjohn ! I hope you enjoyed your first PR.
Thank you for your help! I did! |
This is my first contribution so I would appreciate your guidance. I think I have fixed the issue, but I'm confused on where to add test(s), or if I need to at all. Would it be acceptable to use Dr-Irv's reproduction script, or perhaps a modified copy?