-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 608
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
docs: mention and clarify meaning of ! in schemas #10243
Comments
Thanks, yep, that should be documented. Any interesting in making a PR to add some docs? |
Hi! Can I try working on this issue? |
Yes, of course! |
Would still happily accept a pull request for this! Ping @IndexSeek if you're interested! |
Hi, I'm sorry for lack of communication from my end, I couldn't work on the issue as I was sick, I'll get a PR created in a few days. |
not sure should I open a new issue ibis.dtype does not accept string value with nullable=False. It is confusing if one not knowing "!" prefix exists. Also, I cannot find string name of data types in docs. It would be nice to have a table to list all and also mention the "!" prefix. |
Hi @daniel-bale -- all the datatype names are listed on this page: https://ibis-project.org/reference/datatypes And we should support passing |
…10632) ## Description of changes Noted in #10243, passing `nullable` to `ibis.dtype` when using a string name for the dtype leads to an unhelpful error. Instead, we should just support this. This adds support for 'primitive' dtype specifications -- there's no defined behavior for how to specify nested nullable types with a single keyword argument, but this should cover most cases. ## Issues closed xref #10243 but doesn't close it
Please describe the issue
Current docs online about tables, schemas and data types do not mention that schema types may include an "!" prefix, e.g. a schema might look like this
see e.g. https://ibis-project.org/reference/schemas
Probably should be a separate ticket, but I'd also suggest that the use of ! to indicate "not null" could do with a re-think because I think its ambiguous depending on your background e.g. my expectation was that this was the correct interpretation
Thanks!
Code of Conduct
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: