Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

BUG: catch out-of-bounds datetime64 in Series/DataFrame constructor #26848

Merged
merged 13 commits into from
Jun 21, 2019
Merged

BUG: catch out-of-bounds datetime64 in Series/DataFrame constructor #26848

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
13 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
c5fc3c6
BUG: catch out-of-bounds datetime64 in Series/DataFrame constructor
jorisvandenbossche Jun 14, 2019
a0c7051
Update tests according to discussion
jorisvandenbossche Jun 17, 2019
b69f82e
update fix
jorisvandenbossche Jun 17, 2019
3d50970
Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/master' into GH-26206-datetime…
jorisvandenbossche Jun 17, 2019
4d28cad
lint
jorisvandenbossche Jun 17, 2019
67c9e7c
Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/master' into GH-26206-datetime…
jorisvandenbossche Jun 18, 2019
2e431b6
add whatsnew
jorisvandenbossche Jun 18, 2019
ef89acf
parametrize example
jorisvandenbossche Jun 18, 2019
bbb59b1
xfail dataframe from array case
jorisvandenbossche Jun 18, 2019
bf2e77c
move tests
jorisvandenbossche Jun 18, 2019
fd742b7
lint
jorisvandenbossche Jun 18, 2019
968d854
update whatsnew
jorisvandenbossche Jun 19, 2019
369eead
Merge branch 'master' into GH-26206-datetime-unit-out-of-bounds
jorisvandenbossche Jun 21, 2019
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion pandas/core/dtypes/cast.py
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -1063,7 +1063,7 @@ def maybe_cast_to_datetime(value, dtype, errors='raise'):
dtype = value.dtype

if dtype.kind == 'M' and dtype != _NS_DTYPE:
value = value.astype(_NS_DTYPE)
value = tslibs.conversion.ensure_datetime64ns(value)

elif dtype.kind == 'm' and dtype != _TD_DTYPE:
value = to_timedelta(value)
Expand Down
5 changes: 4 additions & 1 deletion pandas/core/internals/construction.py
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -8,7 +8,7 @@
import numpy.ma as ma

from pandas._libs import lib
from pandas._libs.tslibs import IncompatibleFrequency
from pandas._libs.tslibs import IncompatibleFrequency, OutOfBoundsDatetime
from pandas.compat import raise_with_traceback

from pandas.core.dtypes.cast import (
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -701,6 +701,9 @@ def _try_cast(arr, take_fast_path, dtype, copy, raise_cast_failure):
elif not is_extension_type(subarr):
subarr = construct_1d_ndarray_preserving_na(subarr, dtype,
copy=copy)
except OutOfBoundsDatetime:
jreback marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
if raise_cast_failure:
raise
except (ValueError, TypeError):
if is_categorical_dtype(dtype):
# We *do* allow casting to categorical, since we know
Expand Down
5 changes: 5 additions & 0 deletions pandas/tests/series/test_constructors.py
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -909,6 +909,11 @@ def test_constructor_with_naive_string_and_datetimetz_dtype(self, arg):
expected = Series(pd.Timestamp(arg)).dt.tz_localize('CET')
assert_series_equal(result, expected)

def test_constructor_datetime64_outofbound(self):
# GH-26206 out of bound non-ns unit
with pytest.raises(pd.errors.OutOfBoundsDatetime):
pd.Series(np.array(['2262-04-12'], dtype='datetime64[D]'))
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Could you also test the minimum date as well?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It's relying on a general routine that does this bound checking and which is already tested thoroughly through other means, here I mainly want to test to ensure this routine is used. Therefore, I decided to keep the tests here a bit simpler (adding is not that hard, but it just complicates the test further, and there are already several cases). Is that OK?


def test_construction_interval(self):
# construction from interval & array of intervals
index = IntervalIndex.from_breaks(np.arange(3), closed='right')
Expand Down