BUG: Ensure dataframe preserves categorical indices with categorial series

[jmarintur]

Ensure that when constructing a DataFrame with a list of Series with different CategoricalIndexes, the resulting columns are categorical.

• closes BUG: DataFrame([Series with different CategoricalIndexes]) results in non-Categorical columns #57592
• All code checks passed.

[mroeschke]

This fix is too specific. This should be fixed where the Index[object] is being created

[jmarintur]

Hi @mroeschke, Unit Tests failures seem unrelated (when running them locally everything is ok).

[mroeschke]

Do tests fail if you just do:

both_categories = union_categorical([self.categories, other.categories]) self = self.set_categories(both_categories) other = other.set_categories(both_categories) 

[jmarintur]

Hi @mroeschke, switching to using that piece of code, you get:

[jmarintur]

Hi @mroeschke, any suggestion on how you think we should handle the PR at this point? Thank you!

[mroeschke]

Sorry I guess it should have been

both_categories = union_categorical([self, other]) self = self.set_categories(both_categories) other = other.set_categories(both_categories)

The main point here is that ideally there shouldn't be an re-invention of categorical union logic in union

[jmarintur]

Hi @mroeschke, thanks for your guidance. Taking into account your suggestion, and my previous comments, we'd need to change union and _union. Does it sound good to you?

[jmarintur]

Hi @mroeschke, I've just tried your suggestion:

if isinstance(self.dtype, CategoricalDtype) and isinstance( other.dtype, CategoricalDtype ): both_categories = union_categoricals([self, other]) self = self.set_categories(both_categories) other = other.set_categories(both_categories) 

If I run it with this change with the following example:

s1 = pd.Series([1, 2], index=pd.CategoricalIndex(["a", "b"], ordered=False)) s2 = pd.Series([3, 4], index=pd.CategoricalIndex(["b", "c"], ordered=False)) pd.DataFrame([s1, s2]).columns 

union_categoricals returns:

['a', 'b', 'b', 'c'] Categories (3, object): ['a', 'b', 'c'] 

which is the expected behaviour of that function. However, it triggers the following error when setting the categories in self.set_categories(both_categories):

ValueError: Categorical categories must be unique

We only need to change the code to:

if isinstance(self.dtype, CategoricalDtype) and isinstance( other.dtype, CategoricalDtype ): both_categories = union_categoricals([self, other]).categories self = self.set_categories(both_categories) other = other.set_categories(both_categories) 

to make it work for the example above, however, some tests won't pass, e.g.:

FAILED pandas/tests/reshape/concat/test_append.py::TestAppend::test_append_same_columns_type[CategoricalIndex1] - TypeError: Cannot use sort_categories=True with ordered Categoricals FAILED pandas/tests/reshape/concat/test_append.py::TestAppend::test_append_different_columns_types[CategoricalIndex-CategoricalIndex] - TypeError: Categorical.ordered must be the same 

leading to the need of handling the order as I did in the last commits.

Any thoughts?

[jmarintur]

Hi, I've just pushed another commit with, what I think, it is a better way on handling it. It does follow the original logic when both CategoricalIndex differ. Please let me know what you think.

[mroeschke]

Thanks for the pull request, but it appears to have gone stale. If interested in continuing, please merge in the main branch, address any review comments and/or failing tests, and we can reopen.

[jmarintur]

Dear @mroeschke, could you please give me some feedback? I'd like to understand what's missing in my last changes.