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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

BUG: Period constructor raises instead of ignoring when passing a string with extra precision(pico, femto, etc.) #50417

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Jan 16, 2023
Merged

BUG: Period constructor raises instead of ignoring when passing a string with extra precision(pico, femto, etc.) #50417

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
89a5b68
TST: Add test for Period construction from str with zero nanos
lithomas1 Dec 23, 2022
20b6b13
BUG: Period would raise a KeyError when given a string with extra pre…
lithomas1 Dec 23, 2022
773df4f
Merge branch 'main' into test-period-zero-nanos
lithomas1 Dec 30, 2022
1e67122
Update parsing.pyx
lithomas1 Jan 3, 2023
ee250e5
Merge branch 'main' into test-period-zero-nanos
lithomas1 Jan 11, 2023
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion doc/source/whatsnew/v2.0.0.rst
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -993,7 +993,7 @@ Period
^^^^^^
- Bug in :meth:`Period.strftime` and :meth:`PeriodIndex.strftime`, raising ``UnicodeDecodeError`` when a locale-specific directive was passed (:issue:`46319`)
- Bug in adding a :class:`Period` object to an array of :class:`DateOffset` objects incorrectly raising ``TypeError`` (:issue:`50162`)
-
- Bug in :class:`Period` where passing a string with finer resolution than nanosecond would result in a ``KeyError`` instead of dropping the extra precision (:issue:`50417`)

Plotting
^^^^^^^^
Expand Down
9 changes: 8 additions & 1 deletion pandas/_libs/tslibs/parsing.pyx
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -393,7 +393,7 @@ cdef parse_datetime_string_with_reso(
&out_tzoffset, False
)
if not string_to_dts_failed:
if dts.ps != 0 or out_local:
if out_bestunit == NPY_DATETIMEUNIT.NPY_FR_ns or out_local:
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

makes sense. to be totally correct we might need to check for ps, fs, as?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Good point. What should be the error message we raise, or should we silently ignore?

On 1.5.2, doing pd.Period("1970/01/01 00:00:00.000000000111") gives me

Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
  File "pandas/_libs/tslibs/period.pyx", line 2579, in pandas._libs.tslibs.period.Period.__new__
  File "pandas/_libs/tslibs/parsing.pyx", line 369, in pandas._libs.tslibs.parsing.parse_time_string
  File "pandas/_libs/tslibs/parsing.pyx", line 431, in pandas._libs.tslibs.parsing.parse_datetime_string_with_reso
KeyError: 11

Timestamp seems to ignore the extra precision, so maybe we should match that here?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

definitely better than the status quo. it might be reasonable to have Timestamp warn/raise instead of silently truncating, but thats out of scope.

# TODO: the not-out_local case we could do without Timestamp;
# avoid circular import
from pandas import Timestamp
Expand All @@ -402,6 +402,13 @@ cdef parse_datetime_string_with_reso(
parsed = datetime(
dts.year, dts.month, dts.day, dts.hour, dts.min, dts.sec, dts.us
)
# Match Timestamp and drop picoseconds, femtoseconds, attoseconds
# The new resolution will just be nano
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

GH ref pointing back here?

# GH 50417
if out_bestunit in {NPY_DATETIMEUNIT.NPY_FR_ps,
NPY_DATETIMEUNIT.NPY_FR_fs,
NPY_DATETIMEUNIT.NPY_FR_as}:
out_bestunit = NPY_DATETIMEUNIT.NPY_FR_ns
reso = {
NPY_DATETIMEUNIT.NPY_FR_Y: "year",
NPY_DATETIMEUNIT.NPY_FR_M: "month",
Expand Down
5 changes: 5 additions & 0 deletions pandas/tests/scalar/period/test_period.py
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -545,6 +545,11 @@ def test_period_cons_combined(self):
(".000000999", 999),
(".123456789", 789),
(".999999999", 999),
(".999999000", 0),
# Test femtoseconds, attoseconds, picoseconds are dropped like Timestamp
(".999999001123", 1),
(".999999001123456", 1),
(".999999001123456789", 1),
],
)
def test_period_constructor_nanosecond(self, day, hour, sec_float, expected):
Expand Down