-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 97
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
[FEAT] Add MultiAggJoiner, refactor AggJoiner #876
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM, thanks a lot @TheooJ !
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
So this is a first pass. In general, I'm quite happy with what is there.
I assume that we will need an entry in the changelog as well.
You need a changelog entry for this (adding an entry in doc/CHANGES.rst) |
Co-authored-by: Guillaume Lemaitre <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM, thanks a lot @TheooJ !
@glemaitre , I think the main outstanding comment from your previous review was whether passing a list of strings (instead of list of list of strings) for the keys should be allowed, and that has been addressed.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM. Thanks @TheooJ
Sharing my WIP for issue #810
Adding the
MultiAggJoiner
also means refactoring theAggJoiner
to match theJoiner
, in particular:key
argumentNotes:
AggJoiner
. Later we / I could move it before aggregation, I didn’t want to touch it for now since it is linked to the_polars.aggregate
and_pandas.aggregate
functions, let me know how you feel about thisJoiner
andAggJoiner
?Also, thanks @jeromedockes & @Vincent-Maladiere for the discussions !