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

x in pd.MultiIndex.drop(x) #19027

Closed
toobaz opened this Issue Jan 1, 2018 · 4 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
2 participants
@toobaz
Copy link
Member

toobaz commented Jan 1, 2018

Code Sample, a copy-pastable example if possible

In [2]: 2 in pd.MultiIndex.from_product([[1, 2], [3, 4]]).drop(2)
Out[2]: True

Problem description

#2770 was actually more complex than what I understood when I suggested to close it. While remove_unused_levels() did solve the problem of just resetting the .levels, the above is still buggy. Ironically, the above is even tested.

Expected Output

False

Output of pd.show_versions()

INSTALLED VERSIONS

commit: 8433562
python: 3.5.3.final.0
python-bits: 64
OS: Linux
OS-release: 4.9.0-4-amd64
machine: x86_64
processor:
byteorder: little
LC_ALL: None
LANG: it_IT.UTF-8
LOCALE: it_IT.UTF-8

pandas: 0.23.0.dev0+10.g84335621a
pytest: 3.2.3
pip: 9.0.1
setuptools: 36.7.0
Cython: 0.25.2
numpy: 1.12.1
scipy: 0.19.0
pyarrow: None
xarray: None
IPython: 6.2.1
sphinx: 1.5.6
patsy: 0.4.1
dateutil: 2.6.1
pytz: 2017.2
blosc: None
bottleneck: 1.2.0dev
tables: 3.3.0
numexpr: 2.6.1
feather: 0.3.1
matplotlib: 2.0.0
openpyxl: 2.3.0
xlrd: 1.0.0
xlwt: 1.3.0
xlsxwriter: 0.9.6
lxml: 4.1.1
bs4: 4.5.3
html5lib: 0.999999999
sqlalchemy: 1.0.15
pymysql: None
psycopg2: None
jinja2: 2.10
s3fs: None
fastparquet: None
pandas_gbq: None
pandas_datareader: 0.2.1

@jreback

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

jreback commented Jan 1, 2018

this is a defined behavior. why should this not be True? The point is we don't perform this optimization as we don't really know when to do it.

@toobaz

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

toobaz commented Jan 1, 2018

It should not be True... because it's not in the index: being in the .levels is an implementation detail.

And while I agree about not optimizing implicitly, then we must check both that 2 is in .levels[0] and that the relative code is in the .labels[0]. Or more simply: 2 in a_multiindex should just be implemented as (2,) in a_multiindex, which already returns the correct result.

@jreback

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

jreback commented Jan 2, 2018

ok I suppose this is inconsistent. .get_loc should also KeyError (correct now).

@jreback jreback added this to the Next Major Release milestone Jan 2, 2018

@toobaz

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

toobaz commented Jan 2, 2018

Right!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.