-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 18.6k
Bug46381 - Add storage_option
parameter to to_excel method in Styler
#46491
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
add a mising ` in on_bad_lines option description in " New in version 1.3.0: " section , that was causing to make couple of lines red
storage_option
parameter from doc string for to_excel method in Styler
storage_option
parameter from doc string for to_excel method in Stylerstorage_option
parameter to_excel method in Styler
storage_option
parameter to_excel method in Stylerstorage_option
parameter to to_excel method in Styler
72f6ad0
to
481ed71
Compare
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.
this needs some sort of testing (even though its effectivevly passed thru).
see how we do this for read_csv and would need to do the same on specific types of storage backends.
This pull request is stale because it has been open for thirty days with no activity. Please update and respond to this comment if you're still interested in working on this. |
@eshirvana - are you interested in continuing here? I believe this is fairly close, just fixing the docs and a small improvement to the test. |
i would love to , but I'm not sure how to fix the document part . any help is appreciated |
@eshirvana - the easiest way I see to implement is in #46491 (comment). I think we should go ahead and do that to get the version added correct. |
Thanks @eshirvana - the docstring change looks good. Some CI failures:
Offhand it looks related but rerunning the jobs in case something was flakey. If they fail again, can you have a look. |
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, cc @jreback
@eshirvana - can you merge main; I think that will fix the CI issues. |
@rhshadrach |
Thanks @eshirvana!
When there are CI failures in a PR, but recent PRs into main are green, it is likely the failure is unrelated and caused by an issue that has since been fixed. By merging in main into the PR as @jreback did, the CI runs again and we can double check this is the case. We also like to merge main before merging a PR to run the tests again because it could be that there are other changes that have happened since the tests were last run that would identify issues. |
…das-dev#46491) Co-authored-by: Jeff Reback <jeff@reback.net>
doc/source/whatsnew/vX.X.X.rst
file if fixing a bug or adding a new feature.