-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 18k
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
Deprecate non-keyword arguments for drop_duplicates. #41500
Merged
MarcoGorelli
merged 15 commits into
pandas-dev:master
from
jmholzer:deprecate-nonkeyword-args-drop_duplicates
May 25, 2021
Merged
Changes from 5 commits
Commits
Show all changes
15 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
ebd40aa
ENH: Deprecate non-keyword arguments for drop_duplicates.
jmholzer 8cb7645
leave newline
jmholzer fa6574c
ENH: Deprecate non-keyword arguments for drop_duplicates.
jmholzer d7c341a
ENH: Deprecate non-keyword arguments for drop_duplicates.
jmholzer 19aa589
ENH: Deprecate non-keyword arguments for drop_duplicates.
jmholzer 448e8a1
merge
jmholzer 0d54ca7
ENH: Deprecate non-keyword arguments for drop_duplicates.
jmholzer 463c37a
ENH: Deprecate non-keyword arguments for drop_duplicates.
jmholzer c0d3d34
merge
jmholzer 2cb482f
ENH: Deprecate non-keyword arguments for drop_duplicates.
jmholzer 09fe413
ENH: Deprecate non-keyword arguments for drop_duplicates.
jmholzer 03d0330
remove redundant line
MarcoGorelli be8393d
Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/master' into pr/jmholzer/41500
MarcoGorelli fbf70a2
ENH: Deprecate non-keyword arguments for drop_duplicates.
jmholzer 937d9e2
Merge branch 'deprecate-nonkeyword-args-drop_duplicates' of https://g…
jmholzer 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 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 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 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 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 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.
maybe we should do the same for Index at the same time for consistency.
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.
we will get
error: Signature of "drop_duplicates" incompatible with supertype "IndexOpsMixin" [override]
otherwiseThere 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.
Should I add the warning decorator to Index.drop_duplicates + test in a commit on this branch / pull request?
cc @MarcoGorelli
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.
Yes, that would be great, thanks @jmholzer !
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.
I made these changes in the commit 064268f.
However, it looks like a lot of commits that I pulled from the master branch ended up in this pull request also, I don't have enough knowledge of git to understand why this happened (I used rebase, but didn't think the commits from master would show up in the PR). Is this a problem? If so, can I fix it?
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.
Yeah you'll need to rebase (see https://youtu.be/hv8dhOEzQcM), currently this is showing lots of unrelated changes. Something like
and then in the interactive window choose which commits to keep/drop/fixup/edit
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.
Thanks for the guidance, I appreciate it.
I did the following to fix things:
That has gotten rid of the spurious commits. I tried using a rebase instead of a merge in step 3, as you suggested, but I couldn't do it cleanly.
Are steps 3-4 acceptable for working on pandas, or is a rebase generally preferred to a merge?
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.
yeah that's fine, commits will get squashed anyway