Skip to content

CLN: Change assert_(a in b) and assert_(a not in b) to specialized forms #6381

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

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Feb 17, 2014
Merged

CLN: Change assert_(a in b) and assert_(a not in b) to specialized forms #6381

merged 1 commit into from
Feb 17, 2014

Conversation

bwignall
Copy link
Contributor

Work on #6175. Changes instances of assert_(a [not] in b) to specialized assert[Not]In(a,b).

Work on #6175. Changes instances of assert_(a [not] in b) to specialized assert[Not]In(a,b).
@bwignall
Copy link
Contributor Author

Uses new functions added in #6376.

Specialized functions should be drop-in replaceable (including named arguments) for the assertions added in 2.7.

@jreback
Copy link
Contributor

jreback commented Feb 17, 2014

@bwignall another thing that maybe should be done is change the usage of
tm.assert_series_equal and allow self.assert_series_equal but that is actually a big change....maybe just make it possible.....?

jreback added a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 17, 2014
CLN: Change assert_(a in b) and assert_(a not in b) to specialized forms
@jreback jreback merged commit ebe6032 into pandas-dev:master Feb 17, 2014
@bwignall
Copy link
Contributor Author

@jreback, I'll chew on it. That would touch ~1400 lines in the various tests. I will look through them and think about organization.

On the testing docs, @KTAtkinson may be working on that at the moment, as per #6321; if nothing crops up soon, I'll take a crack at it.

@bwignall bwignall deleted the assert_6175_newAsserts_2 branch February 18, 2014 03:22
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants