Properly handle UTC conversion in date2num.#6262
Properly handle UTC conversion in date2num.#6262tacaswell merged 3 commits intomatplotlib:masterfrom
Conversation
lib/matplotlib/tests/test_dates.py
Outdated
| import matplotlib.pyplot as plt | ||
| import matplotlib.dates as mdates | ||
|
|
||
| from numpy import array |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oops, this was an artifact of an earlier test strategy. I'll remove it now.
|
It may be worth adding a test that makes sure this works during a DST->STD transition, where there is a fold, but I suspect that in general that would mostly be a test of the time zone object's ability to handle ambiguous dates (see the extensive discussion at dateutil/dateutil#225 and the various linked discussions for more information than you could ever want about this), so I don't see any significant need for that. The best advice for people is that if they want to use |
|
I am glad someone who is not me understands dates 😄 . We do have some pandas-optional tests floating around already (I think mostly in test_axes) and install pandas on both travis and appveyor so if you want to use pandas you can. |
|
OK, I can add a pandas-specific test. Any idea why the Appveyor build is failing? I got that same failure locally on linux, but since I didn't touch anything related to that test, I figured it was just some weird version-specific problem. |
|
The appveyor is ses is likely due too #5950 |
pganssle
force-pushed
the
fix_date2num_dst
branch
from
0f66e41 to
9fdf115
Compare
pganssle
force-pushed
the
fix_date2num_dst
branch
from
9fdf115 to
66c0ed7
Compare
lib/matplotlib/dates.py
Outdated
| if td_remainder > 0: | ||
| base += td_remainder / SEC_PER_DAY | ||
| # Append the seconds as a fraction of a day | ||
| base += _total_seconds(dt - rdt) / SEC_PER_DAY |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Note: this _total_seconds function was added for Python 2.6 compatibility, but based on the CI it seems that you've dropped Python 2.6 support. Have there been enough Python 2.6-breaking changes that it makes sense to drop this compatibility artifact?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We are still testing 2.6 for the 1.5.x branch but other wise yes, remove
the 2.6 related stuff. We just will not backport this to 1.5.x (there
should not be a 1.5.2 release).
On Sat, Apr 2, 2016 at 5:31 PM Paul Ganssle notifications@github.com
wrote:
In lib/matplotlib/dates.py
#6262 (comment):
if td_remainder > 0:base += td_remainder / SEC_PER_DAY# Append the seconds as a fraction of a daybase += _total_seconds(dt - rdt) / SEC_PER_DAYNote: this _total_seconds function was added for Python 2.6
compatibility, but based on the CI it seems that you've dropped Python 2.6
support. Have there been enough Python 2.6-breaking changes that it makes
sense to drop this compatibility artifact?—
You are receiving this because you commented.Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
https://github.com/matplotlib/matplotlib/pull/6262/files/66c0ed7a019fb734de3615302923839bc692ba12#r58300209
pganssle
force-pushed
the
fix_date2num_dst
branch
from
bae6d54 to
3e6e8d1
Compare
|
Do y'all want me to rebase this so it passes the appveyor tests, or should I just leave it as is? |
| # Convert to UTC | ||
| tzi = getattr(dt, 'tzinfo', None) | ||
| if tzi is not None: | ||
| dt = dt.astimezone(UTC) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think Python 2.7 datetime.date has the astimezone method.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
date also doesn't have tzinfo, so the astimezone line will never fire.
Though, actually, datetime.datetime.timetz() returns an object that has tzinfo and not astimezone. I'm not really sure how to deal with that, though. Are time objects an acceptable input here? I think the offset returned will be None if you try and get the utcoffset of a non-fixed-offset bare time object.
mdboom
modified the milestones:
2.0.1 (next bug fix release),
1.5.2 (Critical bug fix release)
|
Pinging - any update on this PR? |
FIX: Properly handle UTC conversion in date2num
|
backported to v2.x as 64756ee |
QuLogic
modified the milestones:
2.0 (style change major release),
2.0.1 (next bug fix release)
7 participants
Fixes #3896.
I believe this is a much better way to do it than the current method where we're trying to pull the
utcoffset. The issue in #3896 actually has more to do with the waypytzhandles normalization and the way thatpandasstoresTimeStampobjects. As you can see from the test I added, a normal list ofdatetimeobjects withpytztime zones won't trigger the bug, but rather than pulling inpandasjust for the test, I mocked out a datetime object that basically does the same thing pandas is doing.