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

Remove experimental warning from custom offsets #17584

Conversation

jschendel
Copy link
Member

Per discussion here: #17554 (review)

  • passes git diff upstream/master -u -- "*.py" | flake8 --diff

I edited the docstring descriptions slightly. Feel free to suggest cleaner descriptions, if my edits don't suffice. Should there be a whatsnew entry related to removing the experimental status?

@gfyoung gfyoung added the Docs label Sep 19, 2017
@gfyoung
Copy link
Member

gfyoung commented Sep 19, 2017

AFAIK, you do not need to add a whatsnew.

@jschendel jschendel force-pushed the custom-offset-remove-experimental branch from dd6a302 to ba1c154 Compare September 19, 2017 14:05
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Sep 19, 2017

Codecov Report

Merging #17584 into master will decrease coverage by 0.01%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master   #17584      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   91.22%    91.2%   -0.02%     
==========================================
  Files         163      163              
  Lines       49625    49625              
==========================================
- Hits        45270    45261       -9     
- Misses       4355     4364       +9
Flag Coverage Δ
#multiple 88.99% <ø> (ø) ⬆️
#single 40.19% <ø> (-0.07%) ⬇️
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
pandas/tseries/offsets.py 97% <ø> (ø) ⬆️
pandas/io/gbq.py 25% <0%> (-58.34%) ⬇️
pandas/core/frame.py 97.77% <0%> (-0.1%) ⬇️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 6630c4e...ba1c154. Read the comment docs.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Sep 19, 2017

Codecov Report

Merging #17584 into master will decrease coverage by 0.01%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master   #17584      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   91.22%    91.2%   -0.02%     
==========================================
  Files         163      163              
  Lines       49625    49625              
==========================================
- Hits        45270    45261       -9     
- Misses       4355     4364       +9
Flag Coverage Δ
#multiple 88.99% <ø> (ø) ⬆️
#single 40.19% <ø> (-0.07%) ⬇️
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
pandas/tseries/offsets.py 97% <ø> (ø) ⬆️
pandas/io/gbq.py 25% <0%> (-58.34%) ⬇️
pandas/core/frame.py 97.77% <0%> (-0.1%) ⬇️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 6630c4e...ba1c154. Read the comment docs.

Copy link
Contributor

@jreback jreback left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

lgtm. we have an issue with the experimental items on it - let's put a reference and check this one off

merge away

@jorisvandenbossche jorisvandenbossche added this to the 0.21.0 milestone Sep 22, 2017
@jorisvandenbossche jorisvandenbossche merged commit 8276a42 into pandas-dev:master Sep 22, 2017
@jorisvandenbossche
Copy link
Member

Thanks!

@jschendel jschendel deleted the custom-offset-remove-experimental branch September 22, 2017 08:27
alanbato pushed a commit to alanbato/pandas that referenced this pull request Nov 10, 2017
No-Stream pushed a commit to No-Stream/pandas that referenced this pull request Nov 28, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants