Skip to content
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

TST: Make HDF5 fspath write test robust #16575

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jun 1, 2017

Conversation

TomAugspurger
Copy link
Contributor

The test_write_fspath_all test would fail on the HDF5 example
occasionally (about 1/100 in my experience). Apparently you don't get an
identical HDF5 every single time. This refactors that test out to its own where
we write and read both versions, and compare equality that way.

See #14026 (comment) and https://circleci.com/gh/pandas-dev/pandas/2507?utm_campaign=vcs-integration-link&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github-build-link for an example

The test_write_fspath_all test would fail on the HDF5 example
occasionally (about 1/100 in my experience). Apparently you don't get an
identical HDF5 every single time. This refactors that test out to its own where
we write and read both versions, and compare equality that way.
@TomAugspurger TomAugspurger added IO Data IO issues that don't fit into a more specific label Unreliable Test Unit tests that occasionally fail labels Jun 1, 2017
@TomAugspurger TomAugspurger added this to the 0.21.0 milestone Jun 1, 2017
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jun 1, 2017

Codecov Report

Merging #16575 into master will decrease coverage by 0.02%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master   #16575      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   90.78%   90.75%   -0.03%     
==========================================
  Files         161      161              
  Lines       51089    51089              
==========================================
- Hits        46380    46368      -12     
- Misses       4709     4721      +12
Flag Coverage Δ
#multiple 88.59% <ø> (-0.03%) ⬇️
#single 40.16% <ø> (ø) ⬆️
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
pandas/plotting/_converter.py 63.23% <0%> (-1.82%) ⬇️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update fb47ee5...7b1e9c5. Read the comment docs.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jun 1, 2017

Codecov Report

Merging #16575 into master will decrease coverage by 0.02%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master   #16575      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   90.78%   90.75%   -0.03%     
==========================================
  Files         161      161              
  Lines       51089    51089              
==========================================
- Hits        46380    46368      -12     
- Misses       4709     4721      +12
Flag Coverage Δ
#multiple 88.59% <ø> (-0.03%) ⬇️
#single 40.16% <ø> (ø) ⬆️
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
pandas/plotting/_converter.py 63.23% <0%> (-1.82%) ⬇️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update fb47ee5...7b1e9c5. Read the comment docs.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jun 1, 2017

Codecov Report

Merging #16575 into master will decrease coverage by 0.02%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master   #16575      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   90.78%   90.75%   -0.03%     
==========================================
  Files         161      161              
  Lines       51089    51089              
==========================================
- Hits        46380    46368      -12     
- Misses       4709     4721      +12
Flag Coverage Δ
#multiple 88.59% <ø> (-0.03%) ⬇️
#single 40.16% <ø> (ø) ⬆️
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
pandas/plotting/_converter.py 63.23% <0%> (-1.82%) ⬇️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update fb47ee5...7b1e9c5. Read the comment docs.

@jreback jreback merged commit a19f9fa into pandas-dev:master Jun 1, 2017
@jreback
Copy link
Contributor

jreback commented Jun 1, 2017

thanks!

@jreback
Copy link
Contributor

jreback commented Jun 1, 2017

you might want to backport this? up 2 u

@TomAugspurger
Copy link
Contributor Author

I think the fspath stuff was 0.21.0 (since it had that minor API change on HDFStore's getattr)

@jreback
Copy link
Contributor

jreback commented Jun 1, 2017

ahh right I remember your comment. thanks.

@TomAugspurger TomAugspurger deleted the write-fspath-test branch June 4, 2017 20:29
Kiv pushed a commit to Kiv/pandas that referenced this pull request Jun 11, 2017
The test_write_fspath_all test would fail on the HDF5 example
occasionally (about 1/100 in my experience). Apparently you don't get an
identical HDF5 every single time. This refactors that test out to its own where
we write and read both versions, and compare equality that way.
stangirala pushed a commit to stangirala/pandas that referenced this pull request Jun 11, 2017
The test_write_fspath_all test would fail on the HDF5 example
occasionally (about 1/100 in my experience). Apparently you don't get an
identical HDF5 every single time. This refactors that test out to its own where
we write and read both versions, and compare equality that way.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
IO Data IO issues that don't fit into a more specific label Unreliable Test Unit tests that occasionally fail
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants