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

BUG: Index constructor doesn't coerce int-like floats to UInt64Index #18400

Closed
jschendel opened this Issue Nov 21, 2017 · 3 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
2 participants
@jschendel
Member

jschendel commented Nov 21, 2017

Code Sample, a copy-pastable example if possible

In [2]: pd.Index([0., 1., 2.], dtype='uint64')
Out[2]: Int64Index([0, 1, 2], dtype='int64')

Note that this also impacts ancillary functions that rely on this behavior, like UInt64Index.where:

In [3]: idx = pd.UInt64Index(range(5))
   ...: idx
   ...:
Out[3]: UInt64Index([0, 1, 2, 3, 4], dtype='uint64')

In [4]: idx.where(idx < 100, -1)
Out[4]: Int64Index([0, 1, 2, 3, 4], dtype='int64')

Problem description

The Index constructor does not coerce int-like floats to UInt64Index when uint64 is passed as the dtype, and instead returns a Int64Index.

Required for #18398 but not directly caused by it; existing bug that was brought to light during implementation.

Expected Output

I'd expect a UInt64Index instead of Int64Index.

Output of pd.show_versions()

INSTALLED VERSIONS

commit: None
python: 3.6.3.final.0
python-bits: 64
OS: Windows
OS-release: 10
machine: AMD64
processor: Intel64 Family 6 Model 78 Stepping 3, GenuineIntel
byteorder: little
LC_ALL: None
LANG: None
LOCALE: None.None

pandas: 0.21.0
pytest: 3.1.2
pip: 9.0.1
setuptools: 27.2.0
Cython: 0.26
numpy: 1.13.3
scipy: 0.19.1
pyarrow: None
xarray: None
IPython: 6.1.0
sphinx: 1.5.6
patsy: 0.4.1
dateutil: 2.6.1
pytz: 2017.2
blosc: None
bottleneck: 1.2.1
tables: 3.2.2
numexpr: 2.6.4
feather: None
matplotlib: 2.0.2
openpyxl: 2.4.7
xlrd: 1.0.0
xlwt: 1.2.0
xlsxwriter: 0.9.6
lxml: 3.7.3
bs4: 4.6.0
html5lib: 0.999
sqlalchemy: 1.1.9
pymysql: None
psycopg2: None
jinja2: 2.9.6
s3fs: None
fastparquet: None
pandas_gbq: None
pandas_datareader: None

@jreback

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

jreback commented Nov 21, 2017

can u search existing issues as well
almost certain we already have an issue (similar maybe) to this

@jschendel

This comment has been minimized.

Member

jschendel commented Nov 21, 2017

#15832 seems similar, though not this exact issue

@jreback

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

jreback commented Nov 21, 2017

right that’s the one
yeah a little different

@jreback jreback modified the milestones: Next Major Release, 0.22.0 Nov 21, 2017

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment