remove get_value_box since it is redundant with libindex.get_value_at

[jbrockmendel]

tslib.get_value_box is effectively identical to index.get_value_at (figuring this out requires looking at util.get_value_at). Since the only use of get_value_box is in core.index.base, just get rid of it and use libindex.get_value_at there instead.

Fixup type declarations in util.get_value_at.

• closes get_value_box duplication #18299
• passes git diff upstream/master -u -- "*.py" | flake8 --diff

[jreback]

pls asv indexing (shouldn't be an issue, but just check).

[jbrockmendel]

Turns out get_value_box is necessary because it raises IndexError in cases where the other version ignores it. So now the change is just to move get_value_box from libts to libindex.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #18371 into master will decrease coverage by 0.02%.
The diff coverage is 100%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master   #18371      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   91.38%   91.36%   -0.03%     
==========================================
  Files         164      164              
  Lines       49790    49799       +9     
==========================================
- Hits        45501    45499       -2     
- Misses       4289     4300      +11

Flag	Coverage Δ
#multiple	89.16% <100%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
#single	39.55% <100%> (-0.04%)	⬇️

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
pandas/core/indexes/base.py	96.42% <100%> (ø)	⬆️
pandas/io/gbq.py	25% <0%> (-58.34%)	⬇️
pandas/core/indexes/interval.py	92.52% <0%> (-0.34%)	⬇️
pandas/core/frame.py	97.8% <0%> (-0.1%)	⬇️
pandas/core/internals.py	94.54% <0%> (ø)	⬆️
pandas/tseries/offsets.py	96.92% <0%> (+0.01%)	⬆️

---

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 b00e62c...38e29d1. Read the comment docs.

[jreback]

if you can add a doc string at some point

[jreback]

thanks!

[jorisvandenbossche]

@jbrockmendel a general comment: can you use the 'CLN: ' tag in PR titles / commits for PRs that are purely cleaning things up? (so no bug, enhancement or performance related aspect)