-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.1k
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
py38-upstream-dev failure: 'CFTimeIndex' object has no attribute '_id' #4516
Comments
pandas-dev/pandas#37087 recently touched |
Indeed a bisect reveals pandas-dev/pandas#37087 was the cause:
I think it's that
I'll have to think about things a little more to see if we should pursue an upstream fix or whether we can address it in xarray. |
I posted a question in the pandas repo related to this: pandas-dev/pandas#37213. |
I’ve looked at the This will fix this bug, but should be done even if this particular error didn`t appear, because it will give a performance boost when comparing indexes. |
Thanks @topper-123 -- I see you also made pandas-dev/pandas#37321, making We do rely on private attributes in some places, but we're typically cautious about doing that, because their behavior can change without warning. For instance, in this case pandas-dev/pandas#37087 would have been a breaking change in a different way, since Looking at the history of |
Thanks to @topper-123's PR being merged upstream, this is now fixed. The next time our CI runs it should be green (I tested things out offline). If we want we can consider leveraging |
Now that #4502 was fixed upstream we get a new issue in
py38-upstream-dev
(which I am pretty sure is unrelated as dask is not involved).xarray/tests/test_cftimeindex_resample.py::test_resample
fails with:See: https://dev.azure.com/xarray/xarray/_build/results?buildId=4038&view=logs&jobId=603f3fdc-8af6-5e0a-f594-fa71bc949352&j=603f3fdc-8af6-5e0a-f594-fa71bc949352&t=51624cf6-228d-5319-1d6f-8cd30bcca2e7
The failure did not happen on the 14. Oct. (db4f03e the failures here are #4502) but it appeared on the 15. Oct. (1553749)
Maybe a change in pandas? I have not looked at it closely - maybe @spencerkclark sees what's going on?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: