Update datetime columns to perserve their original format - #931
Update datetime columns to perserve their original format#931sarahmish wants to merge 7 commits into
Conversation
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #931 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 95.69% 95.70% +0.01%
==========================================
Files 122 122
Lines 5316 5332 +16
==========================================
+ Hits 5087 5103 +16
Misses 229 229
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
R-Palazzo
left a comment
R-Palazzo
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good
I just left minor comments
|
|
||
|
|
||
| @pytest.fixture | ||
| def converted_datetime_single_table_demo(): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could we name it data_single_table_demo instead? Since it’s used in many places that don’t specifically focus on datetime conversion.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I can do that but I kept it verbose to make it clearer.
For example, boundary, column shapes, coverage, etc tests fail if the datetime column is not in a datetime64 type. This makes it easy to follow what's the data that's being used in the test.
Let me know if you still prefer this change
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Instead of converted could we be explicit and say object_datetime or string_datetime?
| 1.0, | ||
| np.nan, | ||
| 1.0, | ||
| np.nan, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yep! DatetimeFormatAdherence should be NaN if the column is in datetime64 format
bf4006d to
07e8d51
Compare
950df77 to
6e2bdd2
Compare
3 participants
Resolve #925
Resolve #926