POC/ENH: infer resolution in array_to_datetime #55741
Conversation
| @@ -561,6 +600,24 @@ cpdef array_to_datetime( | |||
| else: | |||
| tz_offset = out_tzoffset_vals.pop() | |||
| tz_out = timezone(timedelta(seconds=tz_offset)) | |||
|
|
|||
| if infer_reso: | |||
| if state.creso_ever_changed: | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not sure what to do here but my first read of state.creso_ever_changed was confusion over the scope of ever; I am inferring from the way the function is currently written that ever refers to the lifetime of this function, but if we have parse states that can persist across multiple function calls that terminology can get a little vague
There was a problem hiding this comment.
if we have parse states that can persist across multiple function calls
we do not
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Any reason to keep it as part of the state then instead of just local to the function?
To be clear not a hold up on this PR for me. Just a consideration point as this continues to evolve
There was a problem hiding this comment.
bc it gets set inside a state-updating method that i dont want to duplicate in a bunch of places. also there are a couple of different places where we use DatetimeParseState and im trying to iron out the kinks in behavior differences between them.
|
@mroeschke ok here? this goes a long way toward #55901 |
| def test_infer_heterogeneous(self): | ||
| dtstr = "2023-10-27 18:03:05.678000" | ||
|
|
||
| arr = np.array([dtstr, dtstr[:-3], dtstr[:-7], None], dtype=object) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In a follow up, it would be good to also add a test for different objects too e.g. np.array([dtstr, pydate, pydatetime, np.datetime64, int])
mroeschke
added
the
Non-Nano
|
Thanks @jbrockmendel |
* ENH: infer resolution in array_to_datetime * post-merge fixup * post-merge fixup
xref #55564 implements the relevant logic in array_to_datetime, does not change any user-facing behavior yet.
Have not yet done any profiling, but we have to expect a slowdown.