Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #40 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 91.30% 92.59% +1.28%
==========================================
Files 1 1
Lines 23 27 +4
==========================================
+ Hits 21 25 +4
Misses 2 2
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
|
Makes sense. Maybe we should also say that Tables.jl is the owner of the function, and add a fallback definition there (that would notably work for vectors of names tuples)? I'm also not sure whether we should provide a docstring here, or in Tables.jl instead, given that we don't define any method here (cf. discussion regarding join functions). |
|
@quinnj - is making Tables.jl an owner feasible? I was thinking about it also, but I was not sure. An alternative would be to make the default implementation in DataAPI.jl that would return |
|
I'd rather throw a |
|
OK - makes sense. With the definitions I gave now |
|
Ah - and I made the docsting, as as opposed to |
|
Just FYI: For a Tables.jl implementation one might look at what we have currently in MLJBase.jl (courtesy of @OkonSamuel): https://github.com/JuliaAI/MLJBase.jl/blob/f21d295d3f0714ec8f5dcc93d1aa34ccbf16fdff/src/interface/data_utils.jl#L77 . |
|
I'm fine with adding these definitions here; I've mentioned elsewhere in various Tables.jl issues, however, that Now, I will say that's just the row-based table case. For column-based tables, we do expect the # of rows to be defined, and Tables.jl has And so, I'd say I don't think I'm on board with having Tables.jl be the owner, because I'm afraid that will give the impression that |
|
So - in summary. What I propose now is just what is needed if I understand the comments correctly. Let us wait for @nalimilan to review. |
|
@nalimilan - could you please review. After merging this I would make a 1.9 release. Thank you! |
Co-authored-by: Milan Bouchet-Valat <nalimilan@club.fr>
|
Thank you! Making a release |
|
cc @OkonSamuel |
|
Would not |
|
I think it is too late to change this for DataFrames.jl, and given we will stick to |
Following the discussion in JuliaAI/ScientificTypes.jl#137 (comment).
CC @quinnj @nalimilan @ablaom