DEPR: Positional arguments in to_* I/O methods

[lithomas1]

These should all be keyword only except for buf/path_or_buf argument (the first one).

• to_csv
• to_orc
• to_parquet
• to_pickle
• to_hdf
• to_sql
• to_dict
• to_excel
• to_json
• to_html
• to_feather
• to_latex
• to_stata
• to_gbq
• to_string
• to_clipboard
• to_markdown

cc @MarcoGorelli since you championed the last effort

[rmhowe425]

take

[lithomas1]

Going to mark this as a good first issue.

See #41485 as a starting point for how to do this.

You are basically doing the same, but for the to_* methods, and the only keyword that should be allowed to be positional (and not keyword only) is the first one specifying the buffer/file to write to.

(Please add your whatsnew to v2.2.0.rst for now.

In the future, if this issue is still open after 2.2.0 comes out, pick the whatsnew corresponding to the newest release that ends in a zero. e.g. v2.3.0.rst, ...)

If you need any help, please ask on Slack (#newcomers channel) to avoid cluttering up this issue, but if you'd like to take one of the methods, just comment which one you want below.

[rsm-23]

I'll take to_pickle

[rsm-23]

Taking to_string

[rsm-23]

taking to_latex and to_stata and to_markdown

[rsm-23]

@mroeschke @lithomas1 can one of you please review this #54599

[rmhowe425]

I have a PR opened for to_hdf

[rsm-23]

to avoid cluttering up this issue, but if you'd like to take one of the methods, just comment which one you want below.

Hey @rmhowe425 , I took some of the other methods. Would it be okay if I help out with the ones I already selected? Also do you plan to work on all the methods by yourself?

[rmhowe425]

@rsm-23 Feel free to tackle any and all methods excluding to_hdf! That's the last one that I'll be working on! Once the PR is approved I'll unassign myself from the issue

[lithomas1]

@rmhowe425
Sorry,
I didn't mean to unassign you from the PR if you wanted to keep going on all the methods (also I apologize for the lack of guidance on your other PR)!
I totally forgot to put what I put in my second comment in the PR description.

If you'd like something else to work on, I can go and look at/breakdown some other issues.

[rsm-23]

@rmhowe425 sorry for misreading the situation here. To resolve the situation here, I am fine with closing my PRs. You can continue to work on the whole issue.
cc: @lithomas1

[rmhowe425]

I think I was a bit confused as well! All good!

@rsm-23 Looks like you're tackling these at lightning speed! Feel free to continue working your way down the list of methods! After my PR forto_hdf is completed I'll unassign myself from this issue and find another issue to work on!

[rmhowe425]

@rsm-23 Just unassigned myself from the issue if you want to take it

[rsm-23]

take

[rsm-23]

to_feather has only one named parameter and to_clipboard doesn't have a path/buf parameter, should we also remove them from the list @mroeschke ?
edit: Similar for to_dict method, it doesn't have a path/buf parameter either.

[mroeschke]

to_feather has only one named parameter and to_clipboard doesn't have a path/buf parameter, should we also remove them from the list @mroeschke ? edit: Similar for to_dict method, it doesn't have a path/buf parameter either.

For to_dict and to_clipboard its good to make the arguments keyword only

[rsm-23]

@mroeschke for to_orc it's the same as to_stata, positional arguments is already enforced.
Need a small clarification on to_excel and to_gbq: instead of path/buf do we go with excel_writer and destination_table respectively?

[rsm-23]

hey @mroeschke can you please update the above checklist? Want to cross-check what else is pending? Also,

Need a small clarification on to_excel and to_gbq: instead of path/buf do we go with excel_writer and destination_table respectively?

[mroeschke]

Need a small clarification on to_excel and to_gbq: instead of path/buf do we go with excel_writer and destination_table respectively?

Yup those sound good

[rsm-23]

@mroeschke to_markdown is already merged in this PR , can you please update that as well?