MNT: Bump dev pin on NumPy #60987
MNT: Bump dev pin on NumPy #60987
Conversation
| @@ -2063,6 +2063,7 @@ or a passed ``Series``), then it will be preserved in DataFrame operations. Furt | |||
| different numeric dtypes will **NOT** be combined. The following example will give you a taste. | |||
|
|
|||
| .. ipython:: python | |||
| :okwarning: | |||
| >>> s.argmax() | ||
| 2 | ||
| np.int64(2) | ||
| >>> s.argmin() | ||
| 0 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There are a few of these where I'm wondering if we should be returning Python scalars instead of NumPy. Should issues be opened for these?
cc @pandas-dev/pandas-core
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think generally we always want to return Python scalars (IIRC we got a lot of issues about this in iteration and iteration-like APIs in the past)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Even just wrapping the result of Series._reduce with maybe_box_naive breaks 692 tests. From a cursory look, they're tests that are expecting a NumPy scalar back. A lot however are something like op(data).any().any() so that they will work with DataFrame and Series. I plan to bring this up in the next dev meeting.
| @@ -415,7 +415,7 @@ def unique(values): | |||
|
|
|||
| >>> pd.unique(pd.array([1 + 1j, 2, 3])) | |||
| <NumpyExtensionArray> | |||
| [(1+1j), (2+0j), (3+0j)] | |||
| [np.complex128(1+1j), np.complex128(2+0j), np.complex128(3+0j)] | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I merged #54268 a while back to make these reprs render like the Python scalars/pre numpy 2.0. It appears that PR didn't touch all the relevant repr methods
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'll do a precursor to fix the reprs for arrays, and then revert some of the outputs here.
Your comment only applies to EA reprs?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would say any repr in pandas shouldn't be showing the NEP 51 style repr for scalars.
doc/source/whatsnew/vX.X.X.rstfile if fixing a bug or adding a new feature.