-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 908
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
Match Pandas logic for comparing two objects with nulls #7490
Match Pandas logic for comparing two objects with nulls #7490
Conversation
operator.gt, | ||
operator.ge, | ||
operator.ne, | ||
# comparison ops will temporarily XFAIL |
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.
So, this PR broke tests for series and dataframe mixed arithmetic, because of course comparison ops are now producing different results. However upon investigating further, I realized that dataframe/series mixed arithmetic actually isn't working at all in some situations, and this test has a grievous error (of my own making of course) where it doesn't actually compare the results properly at the end of the test, hence the failure going unnoticed.
This led to PR #7491. However, these PRs are now mutually dependent in the sense that until this PR is merged, I can't actually fix that functionality unless I spend time making the results match the logic this PR is about to change.
It doesn't make sense to me to fix broken code to produce results that will shortly thereafter be changed, forcing me to redo the code/test again.
Let me know if this seems like a sensible way to proceed.
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.
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.
Synced offline and this plan seems like the least painful path forward (without having to merge 3 different PRs into a single one)
@kkraus14 this is a breaking change. What due diligence should be done before merging? |
We have it marked as breaking so we should be good to go. Unfortunately this may cause some breakages, but they're necessary to get the correct behavior moving forward. |
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## branch-0.19 #7490 +/- ##
===============================================
+ Coverage 81.86% 82.00% +0.13%
===============================================
Files 101 101
Lines 16884 16989 +105
===============================================
+ Hits 13822 13931 +109
+ Misses 3062 3058 -4
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
@gpucibot merge |
Fixes #7066