-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 143
add Hashable type to __get_item__ #592 #596
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
Merged
Merged
Changes from 3 commits
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
c8213da
add Hashable type to __get_item__ #592
anilbey f6bd220
add assert_type to test_types_getitem_with_hashable
anilbey 74582b2
code style: formatting
anilbey ff006f4
remove tuple[Hashable, ...] from get_item overload1
anilbey 30cd871
added more assert_type to assure other overloads are ok
anilbey 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 hidden or 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 hidden or 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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Could reduce it to
def __getitem__(self, idx: Scalar | Hashable) -> Series: ...
as atuple
is declared as hashable in typeshed.(Many members of
Scalar
are probably also hashable - not sure whether all of them are hashable.)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 I just removed
tuple[Hashable, ...]
from the signature.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.
Similarly, should we include a
list[Hashable]
in the 3rd overload?The 3rd overload:
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.
Would need
list[HashableT]
to simulate the covariant behavior.Do we have tests for
__getitem__
andslice
? I believe that should be failing now sinceslice
is hashable. Probably would need to make the slice overload the first overload.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'd prefer a more incremental approach here. I'm concerned that we might be making some of the types too wide. Let's have this PR address the issue as reported.
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.
This is actually more complicated than I thought.
Yes, there is a slice test, but it is without assert types.
pandas-stubs/tests/test_frame.py
Line 156 in fbc5f20
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 just added more assert_types in the test to make sure the other overloads are still working fine.