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

Remove unused param/method #22289

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Remove unused param/method #22289

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

alimcmaster1
Copy link
Member

@alimcmaster1 alimcmaster1 commented Aug 12, 2018

  • [y] passes git diff upstream/master -u -- "*.py" | flake8 --diff

-Remove unused param "op" in _validate_for_numeric_unaryop. ( Param remove from single call of function)

-Static method _from_element appears to be unused

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Aug 12, 2018

Codecov Report

Merging #22289 into master will increase coverage by <.01%.
The diff coverage is 100%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master   #22289      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   92.08%   92.08%   +<.01%     
==========================================
  Files         169      169              
  Lines       50694    50691       -3     
==========================================
- Hits        46682    46680       -2     
+ Misses       4012     4011       -1
Flag Coverage Δ
#multiple 90.49% <100%> (ø) ⬆️
#single 42.34% <50%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
pandas/core/indexes/multi.py 95.41% <ø> (+0.07%) ⬆️
pandas/core/indexes/datetimes.py 95.54% <ø> (ø) ⬆️
pandas/core/indexes/base.py 96.43% <100%> (ø) ⬆️

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 0370740...152ee47. Read the comment docs.

@gfyoung gfyoung added the Clean label Aug 13, 2018
@gfyoung
Copy link
Member

gfyoung commented Aug 13, 2018

IMO the changes are semantically distinct enough that they should be broken up into separate PR's for evaluation. @alimcmaster1 : what do you think?

cc @jreback

@alimcmaster1
Copy link
Member Author

Sure @gfyoung , happy to break it up makes it easier to review.

See new PR's here:
#22321
#22323
#22322
#22324

Ill close this one :)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants