Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
BUG: Groupby min/max with nullable dtypes #42567
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
BUG: Groupby min/max with nullable dtypes #42567
Changes from all commits
6f7c961
8f98501
936df47
b325cc0
a021e58
2807b25
1988294
25307f6
921ad33
98f8782
13bd9f3
f44e77b
cc95817
362eed5
5f4ea99
3eb06f5
359c171
35def86
edb1beb
e1a447b
f556ab8
92b4617
11d7f1d
6043105
961073d
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
How is
out
typically initialized? (np.empty
?) I am wondering it it would be good practice to sill setout
anyway (also ifuses_mask=True
to not have "unitialized" values)There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
hmm i could go either way on this
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
this hit in tests?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
For an aggregation op like this, I guess we can avoid the mask copy since the mask is not being modified inplace. (but not something needs to be done in this pr, just a note)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Though I suppose there's the tradeoff that then we'd lose mask contiguity guarantee in the algo?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
haven't looked at the contiguity but that makes sense