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.

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

FIX: Reject any non-array, non-ns datetimes and timedeltas #48360

Closed
wants to merge 4 commits into from

Conversation

brisvag
Copy link

@brisvag brisvag commented Sep 2, 2022

Done at euroSciPy2022! Fixes #48312.

On suggestion of @jorisvandenbossche, we opted to raise an error instead of converting to [ns] in order to make it easier in the future to add support for other granularity levels.

co-author: @Kislovskiy

@gfyoung gfyoung added Bug Timestamp pd.Timestamp and associated methods labels Sep 2, 2022
@brisvag brisvag changed the title Reject any non-array, non-ns datetimes and timedeltas FIX: Reject any non-array, non-ns datetimes and timedeltas Sep 5, 2022
@pep8speaks
Copy link

pep8speaks commented Sep 5, 2022

Hello @brisvag! Thanks for updating this PR. We checked the lines you've touched for PEP 8 issues, and found:

There are currently no PEP 8 issues detected in this Pull Request. Cheers! 🍻

Comment last updated at 2022-09-05 09:54:15 UTC

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Oct 6, 2022

This pull request is stale because it has been open for thirty days with no activity. Please update and respond to this comment if you're still interested in working on this.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the Stale label Oct 6, 2022
@brisvag
Copy link
Author

brisvag commented Oct 6, 2022

I don't know how to solve the build error without help, unfortunately, so I would appreciate some suggestions.

@mroeschke
Copy link
Member

Thanks for the pull request, but it appears to have gone stale. Additionally, it appears this behavior may head in a different direction (#48312 (comment) - happy to have your input!) Closing until the discussion is resolved there

@mroeschke mroeschke closed this Nov 17, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Bug Stale Timestamp pd.Timestamp and associated methods
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

BUG: timedelta64[s] series constructor isn't equal with alternative constructor using to_timedelta unit='s'
5 participants