feat: Disallow order-dependent expressions from being passed to nw.LazyFrame #1806
Conversation
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 comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
MarcoGorelli
force-pushed
the
is-order-dependent-attribute
branch
from
c32884f to
9e2143f
Compare
MarcoGorelli
commented
Jan 13, 2025
MarcoGorelli
commented
Jan 13, 2025
MarcoGorelli
commented
Jan 13, 2025
MarcoGorelli
commented
Jan 13, 2025
MarcoGorelli
commented
Jan 13, 2025
MarcoGorelli
commented
Jan 13, 2025
MarcoGorelli
commented
Jan 13, 2025
MarcoGorelli
commented
Jan 14, 2025
Comment on lines
-17
to
+16
| def test_mode_single_expr(constructor_eager: Constructor) -> None: | ||
| def test_mode_single_expr(constructor_eager: ConstructorEager) -> None: |
MarcoGorelli
changed the title
MarcoGorelli
commented
Jan 14, 2025
| def _flatten_and_extract(self, *args: Any, **kwargs: Any) -> Any: | ||
| """Process `args` and `kwargs`, extracting underlying objects as we go.""" | ||
| args = [self._extract_compliant(v) for v in flatten(args)] # type: ignore[assignment] | ||
| kwargs = {k: self._extract_compliant(v) for k, v in kwargs.items()} | ||
| return args, kwargs | ||
|
|
||
| def _extract_compliant(self, arg: Any) -> Any: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
instead of defining this in BaseFrame, we define it in DataFrame and LazyFrame so they can have different behaviours
FBruzzesi
reviewed
Jan 16, 2025
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks @MarcoGorelli! I let a few tiny comments.
In general I am somehow feeling we are restricting the API a lot - but this might be relevant just for lazy polars anyway.
|
thanks for your review!
yup, exactly - eager backends are unaffected and for lazy ones, if we have something for which polars is the only one which supports it, then that makes writing universal code quite challenging |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
Another step closer to stable.v2
In a future version, we can add
order_byto many of these, and then parametrise over all constructors without issuesThis is work in progress
Technically this would (breakingly) remove some methods for Dask, so the current behaviour could be preserved for
stable.v1.I'm just not sure if it's worth it, given we don't seem to have any users for the Dask backend. ~~~~We could just make the change, and if anyone complains we keep these available for Dask in v1and that's exactly what we do in this PR by overwriting_extract_compliantin v1What type of PR is this? (check all applicable)
Related issues
Checklist
If you have comments or can explain your changes, please do so below