TST: avoid usage of unnecessary xfail in test_datetime64 #55860
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
jorisvandenbossche
added
the
Testing
|
Thanks @jorisvandenbossche |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I noticed those xfails when running the tests in this file locally, because those are for some reason very slow.
First, what we mark as "xfail" is not actually an expected test failure like not-yet-implemented or not-yet-fixed-bug (i.e. something that could be fixed at some point). It's simply that DataFrame broadcasting works differently, so if we want to test this, we should be asserting that it raises a ValueError, which is the expected behaviour.
But for this test, we can actually use a fixture that excludes DataFrame and keep the test working the same for the rest.
And for some reason, this speeds up running the tests in this file a lot (for me locally, this goes from about 105s to 5s, saving almost two minutes). I don't understand why, though ;)