issue_comments

Table actions

4 rows where author_association = "CONTRIBUTOR" and issue = 235761029 sorted by updated_at descending

✎ View and edit SQL

This data as json, CSV (advanced)

Suggested facets: created_at (date), updated_at (date)

user 1

issue 1

  • Automate interpretation of _Unsigned attribute · 4 ✖

author_association 1

  • CONTRIBUTOR · 4 ✖
id html_url issue_url node_id user created_at updated_at ▲ author_association body reactions performed_via_github_app issue
315620355 https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/1453#issuecomment-315620355 https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/1453 MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDMxNTYyMDM1NQ== deeplycloudy 1325771 2017-07-16T16:29:10Z 2017-07-16T16:29:10Z CONTRIBUTOR

Tests now pass after I realized I wasn't converting the _FillValue to unsigned.

I also turned off PyNIO's internal support for masking, in keeping with the philosophy that xarray should only use the backends to retrieve the bytes as represented on disk.

Note that some of the CI builds are skipping most of their tests (e.g, py=3.4; you can tell by the run time). This is a problem in other PRs as well.

 
{
    "total_count": 0,
    "+1": 0,
    "-1": 0,
    "laugh": 0,
    "hooray": 0,
    "confused": 0,
    "heart": 0,
    "rocket": 0,
    "eyes": 0
}
   Automate interpretation of _Unsigned attribute 235761029
309767695 https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/1453#issuecomment-309767695 https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/1453 MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDMwOTc2NzY5NQ== deeplycloudy 1325771 2017-06-20T14:11:36Z 2017-06-20T14:11:36Z CONTRIBUTOR

The CI fail is for 2.7/cdat/pynio in a couple of my new tests. In one, the fill value is not being applied, while in the other the unsigned conversion isn't happening. Are there any known differences in that cdat/pynio stack that would cause these to fail while others pass?

 
{
    "total_count": 0,
    "+1": 0,
    "-1": 0,
    "laugh": 0,
    "hooray": 0,
    "confused": 0,
    "heart": 0,
    "rocket": 0,
    "eyes": 0
}
   Automate interpretation of _Unsigned attribute 235761029
309623307 https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/1453#issuecomment-309623307 https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/1453 MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDMwOTYyMzMwNw== deeplycloudy 1325771 2017-06-20T02:03:12Z 2017-06-20T02:03:12Z CONTRIBUTOR

I've created a new UnsignedIntTypeArray and have separated the logic from mask_and_scale. Lint has been removed and docs updated.

 
{
    "total_count": 0,
    "+1": 0,
    "-1": 0,
    "laugh": 0,
    "hooray": 0,
    "confused": 0,
    "heart": 0,
    "rocket": 0,
    "eyes": 0
}
   Automate interpretation of _Unsigned attribute 235761029
308326393 https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/1453#issuecomment-308326393 https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/1453 MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDMwODMyNjM5Mw== deeplycloudy 1325771 2017-06-14T05:49:52Z 2017-06-14T05:49:52Z CONTRIBUTOR

In addition to the included (basic) test I've also tested this with the real-world data that motivated the PR and #1444. While it's a working draft, I'd welcome comments on the basic approach and appropriateness of the test coverage.

 
{
    "total_count": 0,
    "+1": 0,
    "-1": 0,
    "laugh": 0,
    "hooray": 0,
    "confused": 0,
    "heart": 0,
    "rocket": 0,
    "eyes": 0
}
   Automate interpretation of _Unsigned attribute 235761029

Advanced export

JSON shape: default, array, newline-delimited, object

CSV options: 

CREATE TABLE [issue_comments] (
   [html_url] TEXT,
   [issue_url] TEXT,
   [id] INTEGER PRIMARY KEY,
   [node_id] TEXT,
   [user] INTEGER REFERENCES [users]([id]),
   [created_at] TEXT,
   [updated_at] TEXT,
   [author_association] TEXT,
   [body] TEXT,
   [reactions] TEXT,
   [performed_via_github_app] TEXT,
   [issue] INTEGER REFERENCES [issues]([id])
);
CREATE INDEX [idx_issue_comments_issue]
    ON [issue_comments] ([issue]);
CREATE INDEX [idx_issue_comments_user]
    ON [issue_comments] ([user]);