BUG: Join with a list of a single element should behave as a join with a single element (#57676)
- [x] closes #57676
- [x] Added a test to pandas/tests/frame/methods/test_join.py 

Even though it does not make much sense, joining a dataframe with a list of a single element should behave as joining the dataframe with that element.



Seems like the same test is failing over and over again, however it does not make sense to me, the test is:
```
def  test_suffix_on_list_join():
        first = DataFrame({"key": [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]})
        second = DataFrame({"key": [1, 8, 3, 2, 5], "v1": [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]})
        third = DataFrame({"keys": [5, 2, 3, 4, 1], "v2": [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]})
    
        # check proper errors are raised
        msg = "Suffixes not supported when joining multiple DataFrames"
        with pytest.raises(ValueError, match=msg):
>           first.join([second], lsuffix="y")
E           Failed: DID NOT RAISE <class 'ValueError'>
```

In this example multiple DataFrames are not passed, just a list with a single DataFrame I've updated the test mentioned above, before any list passed with the Dataframe.join method was assumed to have 2+ elements, by adding this edge case where a list can have a single element (behaving has a Dataframe.join with a single element) that condition in the test "test_suffix_on_list_join" no longer makes sense. LGTM. @mroeschke would you mind taking a look? Thanks for the review @Aloqeely, in the meantime I've rebased my PR to address conflicts in the "whatsnew" file. I've noticed that the PR started failing the Numpy Dev tests because it was rebased from the main Pandas branch which is failing the same tests. No other changes (except the whatsnew file) were made since the last review. If any developer familiar with this area of the code could take a look, I'd appreciate it (cc @mroeschke, @WillAyd, @jbrockmendel ) I apologize for the broader ping, but I wasn't sure who would be best suited to review this change. Hmm unfortunately I am -1 on making this change. I'm not sure I understand why we need to special case a single element list.

Generally our requirement for joins / merges is that the key be hashable Sorry ignore my hashability comment - I see this is in regards to the join argument not the key elements themselves. Still, I'm not sure why we need to special case this There's a problem, in some rare cases, that joining a dataframe x with a list containing a single dataframe y would lose information in relation to just joining dataframe x with dataframe y (one example of this on the original issue: https://github.com/pandas-dev/pandas/issues/57676) Ah OK thanks @Dacops . This only solves that then though with a single element list right? What happens when there are multiple list elements? I think there is a fix somewhere else in the code that would work generally - ideally we avoid special-casing solutions like this as they don't add up well over time With multiple list elements the behaviour remains the same. Basically, what the code did was if the joining element is an Object deal with it in the way A, if it's a List deal with it in the way B. I've added that if-statemen that just checks if the list has a single element. If it does use way A else keep using way B. I think what he's saying is that a better fix would be to not treat lists with 1 item as a special case that uses different behavior, and instead fix the merge logic such that it does not fail even if the list has 1 item only Hmmm, yeah I did thought of that, however the line that handles that is on [frame.py/10685](https://github.com/pandas-dev/pandas/blob/ac65c1391b3a07423c21fcb96c380bb2ae51b677/pandas/core/frame.py#L10685): `can_concat = all(df.index.is_unique for df in frames)` and it is been there for 12 years. Therefore I assumed the logic was correct since it wasn't changed for that long and it only fails in very rare cases. I thought it would be more prudent to add the if-statement for the edge cases instead of changing code that has been unaltered for so long. It might very well be broken logic even if it was there for 12 years, funnily enough I just saw [another comment](https://github.com/pandas-dev/pandas/pull/57494#discussion_r1587386787) saying that some broken logic was introduced 13 years ago I think I've identified the problem, that [expression](https://github.com/pandas-dev/pandas/blob/ac65c1391b3a07423c21fcb96c380bb2ae51b677/pandas/core/frame.py#L10685) evaluates if all inserted indexes from all objects in the list are unique so that they can be concatenated (stacked on top of each other). However if a MultiIndex is used the entire MultiIndex is compared not separated indexes inside it. A problem can arise here, for example on the original [issue](https://github.com/pandas-dev/pandas/issues/57676) a Indexed dataframe is getting joined to a MultiIndexed dataframe, the pairs of indexes of the MultiIndexed dataframe are compared to the indexes of the Indexed dataframe. There's no repetition, so they get concatenated, but here's the error. One of the MultiIndexed dataframes index is 'y' same as the index of the Indexed dataframe, and those no longer are unique, which means they need to be merged. Solution I'm thinking of, after the lambda function to check if all indexes are unique, if this evaluates to True add an extra check to look for repeated indexes and if any of these are not unique change the value to False and skip to the Merge instead of a Concat. Hmm I'm not sure I follow - I feel like the indexes should be the same when trying to join. Assuming some kind of matching behavior between an Index and MultiIndex might have a lot of logic pitfalls The problem is with the MultiIndexes, for example in the original [issue](https://github.com/pandas-dev/pandas/issues/57676), the Index is `index=pd.Index(['a', 'b', 'c'], name='y'))`, while the MultiIndex is `index=pd.MultiIndex.from_tuples([(0, 'a'), (0, 'b'), (0, 'c'), (1, 'a'), (1, 'b'), (1, 'c')], names=('x', 'y'))`. When `all(df.index.is_unique for df in frames)` is run over both it gives out the values: `'a', 'b', 'c', (0, 'a'), (0, 'b'), (0, 'c'), (1, 'a'), (1, 'b'), (1, 'c')` which returns True (there are no repetitions, value of indexes are unique, concatenate them). However this cannot happen since the MultiIndex has a 'y' index, if we extract it and repeat `all(df.index.is_unique for df in frames)` over both 'y' we get `'a', 'b', 'c', 'a', 'b', 'c', 'a', 'b', 'c'` which returns False (there are repeated values, we can't concatenate them). Tl;dr when a MultiIndex is passed it's getting evaluated as a whole and not the individual indexs inside it where the merge may occur. I believe I've got the solution for this, I'll push it so you can take a look at it So is this a problem with `is_unique` on `MultiIndex`? Do you think it's current behavior makes sense? I think it should return True only if each level has unique values, and if I understood you correctly that seems to be failing right now

If you agree with my suggested behavior then I will open an issue to fix it, if not we should at least document how it operates on `MultiIndex` (don't see any examples for that) @Aloqeely I believe the current behaviour of `is_unique` for MultiIndex is correct, however for this case this behaviour would not work. This because we're joining an Indexed dataframe with a MultiIndexed dataframe, the join will only occur in a single index (the one of the Indexed dataframe), so the remaining indexs of the MultiIndex are irrelevant to this operation. this doc build and upload check is something I did wrong or do I just re-run the checks, I haven't touched that `/home/runner/work/pandas/pandas/doc/source/user_guide/merging.rst` It does seem related to your changes, I've summarized the example in the doc that fails:
```python
import pandas as pd

left = pd.DataFrame(
       {
           "A": ["A0", "A1", "A2", "A3"],
           "B": ["B0", "B1", "B2", "B3"],
           "key2": ["K0", "K1", "K0", "K1"],
       },
       index=pd.Index(["K0", "K0", "K1", "K2"], name="key1"),
   )

right = pd.DataFrame({"v": [7, 8, 9]}, index=["K1", "K1", "K2"])

result = left.join([right])
```
Raises
```
UnboundLocalError: cannot access local variable 'can_concat' where it is not associated with a value
```
It is surprising that only the doc build failed but not any tests, so once you fix it for this case please add tests. We are fixing the wrong thing from the original issue. I think specifying `on=...` is reasonable to allow an Index and a MultiIndex to be joined together, but we should not be doing anything to automatically try and determine this. We should actually be raising when the indexes have a different number of levels in join Oh thanks @Aloqeely , I figured out what it was,  on this [line](https://github.com/pandas-dev/pandas/blob/04ac369326a4a3211e60cfc31df85f9c61a19933/pandas/core/frame.py#L10687), in case "common_indexes" was empty can_concat would not be initialized and it is called in the following if statement, so it threw an error there. I initialized it to a default value before the for loop so that doesn't occur anymore. Everything's good now, @WillAyd if you could re-review the PR I would appreciate it, thanks. Oh just saw your comment sorry
 Hmmm, so if `on=...` is not defined it should just raise an error? Right if you are trying to join two index objects with non-equal levels Ok, so I've changed the default value of "common_indexes" to a raise if "common_indexes" is empty @Aloqeely how can I get better errors on the Doc build and upload test like you sent instead of just `RuntimeError: Unexpected exception in `/home/runner/work/pandas/pandas/doc/source/user_guide/merging.rst` line 930` ? You can open the doc file which has the errors and go to the error line, run the examples near to that line manually until you see which example causes the error. Oh thanks @Aloqeely, so if my error says `RuntimeError: Unexpected exception in /home/runner/work/pandas/pandas/doc/source/user_guide/merging.rst line 930`, [here](https://github.com/pandas-dev/pandas/blob/e0d30615a0450f95ba89c06a4f0fd6f017259085/doc/source/user_guide/merging.rst?plain=1#L930). Then the test that fails is the one above? The one that starts on line 906, [here](https://github.com/pandas-dev/pandas/blob/e0d30615a0450f95ba89c06a4f0fd6f017259085/doc/source/user_guide/merging.rst?plain=1#L906)? I think so