-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.2k
Provide better error message when dimension name matches argument #3336
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
Open
gwgundersen
wants to merge
1
commit into
pydata:main
Choose a base branch
from
gwgundersen:3324-err-dim-matches-arg
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -249,7 +249,16 @@ def either_dict_or_kwargs( | |
pos_kwargs: Optional[Mapping[Hashable, T]], | ||
kw_kwargs: Mapping[str, T], | ||
func_name: str, | ||
func_args: Any = None, | ||
dims: Any = None, | ||
) -> Mapping[Hashable, T]: | ||
if func_args is not None: | ||
inter = func_args.intersection(dims) | ||
if inter: | ||
raise ValueError( | ||
"the dimension name '%s' matches an argument " | ||
"to .%s" % (inter.pop(), func_name) | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. "Please pass a dictionary to avoid this conflict." or something similar? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Yes, will do. |
||
) | ||
if pos_kwargs is not None: | ||
if not is_dict_like(pos_kwargs): | ||
raise ValueError( | ||
|
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.
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.
I think the magic is OK for the convenience; but is there a better way than
locals()
? Likeinspect
?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.
So this works
and is less brittle than
locals()
without much function-specific overhead.either_dict_or_kwargs
could even takeself.sel
as an argument, and callinspect
itself. I did a basic performance test, andlocals()
is 1/100th of a second faster on average.That said, do we want to not raise an error on something like this?
My current implementation will raise an error because while the user did not pass in a value for
method
, it is still a function parameter. One way to address this is something likebut now we're getting even more complicated.
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.
I don't know what to do here. Perhaps @crusaderky has some ideas?
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.
It seems like it's seriously overengineered to me. You really shouldn't be using inspect.signature when you're dealing with a single, hardcoded function...
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.
Well the idea is to use a helper function anytime we allow dict or kwargs.
sel
is the test case for now