html_url,issue_url,id,node_id,user,created_at,updated_at,author_association,body,reactions,performed_via_github_app,issue
https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/5636#issuecomment-887007467,https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/5636,887007467,IC_kwDOAMm_X8403qjr,41898282,2021-07-26T20:33:12Z,2021-08-09T08:24:07Z,CONTRIBUTOR,"## Unit Test Results
         6 files  ±0           6 suites  ±0   56m 17s :stopwatch: ±0s
16 210 tests ±0  14 479 :heavy_check_mark: ±0  1 731 :zzz: ±0  0 :x: ±0 
90 456 runs  ±0  82 284 :heavy_check_mark: ±0  8 172 :zzz: ±0  0 :x: ±0 

Results for commit 4bb9d9c6. ± Comparison against base commit 4bb9d9c6.

:recycle: This comment has been updated with latest results.","{""total_count"": 0, ""+1"": 0, ""-1"": 0, ""laugh"": 0, ""hooray"": 0, ""confused"": 0, ""heart"": 0, ""rocket"": 0, ""eyes"": 0}",,953235338
https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/5636#issuecomment-893288540,https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/5636,893288540,IC_kwDOAMm_X841PoBc,4160723,2021-08-05T08:57:59Z,2021-08-05T08:57:59Z,MEMBER,"During the last meeting on flexible indexes #5452 we discussed (and agreed) about the general approach implemented here for `xarray.Index`. Nothing is settled yet regarding new public API or public-facing changes, though.

Thanks to everyone who attended to the meeting, and thanks @shoyer and @dcherian for the review/help here.

If there's no objection I'm going to merge this PR tomorrow so that I can move forward with the refactoring.","{""total_count"": 0, ""+1"": 0, ""-1"": 0, ""laugh"": 0, ""hooray"": 0, ""confused"": 0, ""heart"": 0, ""rocket"": 0, ""eyes"": 0}",,953235338
https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/5636#issuecomment-889807390,https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/5636,889807390,IC_kwDOAMm_X841CWIe,4160723,2021-07-30T10:42:10Z,2021-07-30T10:42:10Z,MEMBER,"This is now ready for review!

The new features (e.g., `PandasMultiIndexingAdapter`) are not yet integrated with the rest of the code, but it's probably better to do that in a follow-up PR as this one is getting pretty big.

When cleaning up things I noticed that, e.g., for a dataset `ds` with one dimension coordinate “x”, the corresponding  variable `ds.variables[‘x’]` may wrap a different (pandas) index object than `ds.indexes[‘x’]` (even though both are equal). I don’t think this has an impact on the cache defined for multi-index coordinates in this PR (when created all these coordinates wrap the same underlying pandas index), but in general this is probably sub-optimal. Maybe we could avoid indexing the indexes twice here too?

There are also some places where the indexes are treated as arrays and that probably need better refactoring than the dirty fixes made here. This is the case for `align` (see https://github.com/pydata/xarray/issues/5647) and `map_blocks` (see https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/5636#discussion_r679823542).","{""total_count"": 0, ""+1"": 0, ""-1"": 0, ""laugh"": 0, ""hooray"": 0, ""confused"": 0, ""heart"": 0, ""rocket"": 0, ""eyes"": 0}",,953235338
https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/5636#issuecomment-889287453,https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/5636,889287453,IC_kwDOAMm_X841AXMd,24736507,2021-07-29T16:24:09Z,2021-07-29T16:24:09Z,NONE,"Hello @benbovy! Thanks for updating this PR. We checked the lines you've touched for [PEP 8](https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0008) issues, and found:

























* In the file [`xarray/tests/test_utils.py`](https://github.com/pydata/xarray/blob/84cbf15f4cbb85115f179912a1efc3048231d4e3/xarray/tests/test_utils.py):

> [Line 10:1](https://github.com/pydata/xarray/blob/84cbf15f4cbb85115f179912a1efc3048231d4e3/xarray/tests/test_utils.py#L10): [F401](https://duckduckgo.com/?q=pep8%20F401) 'xarray.core.indexes.PandasIndex' imported but unused



","{""total_count"": 0, ""+1"": 0, ""-1"": 0, ""laugh"": 0, ""hooray"": 0, ""confused"": 0, ""heart"": 0, ""rocket"": 0, ""eyes"": 0}",,953235338