-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 125
ENH: Supporting REPEATED schema for list types #60
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
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #60 +/- ##
===========================================
- Coverage 73.44% 28.29% -45.15%
===========================================
Files 4 4
Lines 1540 1548 +8
===========================================
- Hits 1131 438 -693
- Misses 409 1110 +701
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
tests! |
I don't get what if failing, the test is there but doesn't look like it's being executed.... 🤔 |
FWIW it's not 'pandantic' to put lists in a dataframe, and IIRC if they're on an index you'll face issues with a lot of pandas functionality We approach this with either:
|
@MaximilianR I guessed it is not, but is something we use, thankfully not too often, but still need.
|
What makes you think it's not being executed? |
Thanks @txomon! I think #25 may help us provide support for BigQuery repeated fields. I'd like to keep this PR open just in case #25 doesn't provide this functionality. Regarding the integration tests being skipped, some integration tests will be skipped if a BigQuery project id is not set. I think the tests should fail if a project id is not set. I've created #72 to track this improvement. Follow these steps to run the BigQuery integration tests on Travis: |
Anyone know whether this is still an issue? |
A similar issue was fixed for I think this PR would probably be useful if we wanted to support list types in |
Right, and I think then pandas is not the right tool to be using for writing nested items - lists are badly supported if at all (I'm doubtful that it can write to nested parquet files, for example, so we'd have to write that part too). We've thought about something that would go from I would vote to close, but v open if there are any creative ideas |
Closing as stale, but open to a solution for writing repeated fields |
Basically, at the moment if there are lists inside a column, we have no way to put that data in GBQ. This enables REPEAT mode in a simple way.