We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
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
As a user, it is confusing and inconvenient when my Unique constraint fails validation because of missing values.
Unique
Currently
We want to make the behavior for the Unique constraint consistent in both cases when handling missing values.
We should treat missing values (np.nan, None, etc.) as a unique category/value. Consider the following cases:
np.nan
None
Should PASS → YES (right now this fails)
Col1 Col2 A NaN NaN B C D NaN NaN
Should this pass? → NO
Col1 A NaN C NaN
Should this pass? – NO
Col1 Col2 A NaN A NaN NaN B C D NaN NaN
Col1 Col2 A NaN NaN B C D NaN NaN NaN NaN
Currently all these cases will fail validation, but the first one should pass
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
fealho
Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.
Problem Description
As a user, it is confusing and inconvenient when my
Unique
constraint fails validation because of missing values.Currently
We want to make the behavior for the
Unique
constraint consistent in both cases when handling missing values.Expected behavior
We should treat missing values (
np.nan
,None
, etc.) as a unique category/value. Consider the following cases:Should PASS → YES (right now this fails)
Should this pass? → NO
Should this pass? – NO
Should this pass? – NO
Currently all these cases will fail validation, but the first one should pass
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: