issue_comments

Table actions

6 rows where author_association = "CONTRIBUTOR" and user = 2380665 sorted by updated_at descending

✎ View and edit SQL

This data as json, CSV (advanced)

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

user 1

  • DavidMertz · 6 ✖

author_association 1

  • CONTRIBUTOR · 6 ✖
id html_url issue_url node_id user created_at updated_at ▲ author_association body reactions performed_via_github_app issue
511244796 https://github.com/pydata/xarray/issues/3129#issuecomment-511244796 https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/3129 MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDUxMTI0NDc5Ng== DavidMertz 2380665 2019-07-14T23:40:14Z 2019-07-15T01:10:09Z CONTRIBUTOR

With the following method instead, the identical test succeeds (modulo using the temporary method for tests, of course):

python def broadcast_like_naive(self, other: Union['DataArray', Dataset], exclude=None) -> 'DataArray': return broadcast(other, self)[1]

 
{
    "total_count": 0,
    "+1": 0,
    "-1": 0,
    "laugh": 0,
    "hooray": 0,
    "confused": 0,
    "heart": 0,
    "rocket": 0,
    "eyes": 0
}
   New .broadcast_like() incorrect 467897057
511250197 https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/3130#issuecomment-511250197 https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/3130 MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDUxMTI1MDE5Nw== DavidMertz 2380665 2019-07-15T01:00:09Z 2019-07-15T01:00:39Z CONTRIBUTOR

Made changes suggested by @dcherian. This resolves the detected bug in the test. If CI passes, this should be ready to merge. Removed the temporary method .broadcast_like_naive() and the test using it.

 
{
    "total_count": 0,
    "+1": 0,
    "-1": 0,
    "laugh": 0,
    "hooray": 0,
    "confused": 0,
    "heart": 0,
    "rocket": 0,
    "eyes": 0
}
   Merge broadcast_like docstrings, analyze implementation problem 467897998
511244685 https://github.com/pydata/xarray/issues/3129#issuecomment-511244685 https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/3129 MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDUxMTI0NDY4NQ== DavidMertz 2380665 2019-07-14T23:38:14Z 2019-07-14T23:38:14Z CONTRIBUTOR

In https://github.com/DavidMertz/xarray/tree/feature/2885-broadcast_like-merge-branch I have created a temporary method .broadcast_like_naive() and have created a test against the naive implementation that is identical to the test against the refactored code.

We actually get the failure in the call to .broadcast_like() itself, i.e. not in the assertion about the result:

```python _______ TestDataArray.test_broadcast_like ________

self = <xarray.tests.test_dataarray.TestDataArray object at 0x7f2287e3a828>

def test_broadcast_like(self):
    arr1 = DataArray(np.ones((2, 3)), dims=['x', 'y'],
                     coords={'x': ['a', 'b'], 'y': ['a', 'b', 'c']})
    arr2 = DataArray(np.ones((3, 2)), dims=['x', 'y'],
                     coords={'x': ['a', 'b', 'c'], 'y': ['a', 'b']})
    orig1, orig2 = broadcast(arr1, arr2)

  new1 = arr2.broadcast_like(arr1)

xarray/tests/test_dataarray.py:1276: [...] E ValueError: conflicting sizes for dimension 'y': length 2 on the data but length 3 on coordinate 'y' ```

 
{
    "total_count": 0,
    "+1": 0,
    "-1": 0,
    "laugh": 0,
    "hooray": 0,
    "confused": 0,
    "heart": 0,
    "rocket": 0,
    "eyes": 0
}
   New .broadcast_like() incorrect 467897057
511232692 https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/3127#issuecomment-511232692 https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/3127 MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDUxMTIzMjY5Mg== DavidMertz 2380665 2019-07-14T20:25:27Z 2019-07-14T20:25:27Z CONTRIBUTOR

Great. Will do.

 
{
    "total_count": 0,
    "+1": 0,
    "-1": 0,
    "laugh": 0,
    "hooray": 0,
    "confused": 0,
    "heart": 0,
    "rocket": 0,
    "eyes": 0
}
   Feature/2885 broadcast like 467862319
511232137 https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/3127#issuecomment-511232137 https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/3127 MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDUxMTIzMjEzNw== DavidMertz 2380665 2019-07-14T20:17:22Z 2019-07-14T20:17:22Z CONTRIBUTOR

I realized the overlap only after I made the PR. Their implementation of factoring out the shared code is better than my simple wrapper. But my documention and tests are better.

What's the best way to merge the best? I'm happy to do it, but not sure if it should be a new branch and PR, or a revision of one of the existing ones.

 
{
    "total_count": 0,
    "+1": 0,
    "-1": 0,
    "laugh": 0,
    "hooray": 0,
    "confused": 0,
    "heart": 0,
    "rocket": 0,
    "eyes": 0
}
   Feature/2885 broadcast like 467862319
511219382 https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/3127#issuecomment-511219382 https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/3127 MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDUxMTIxOTM4Mg== DavidMertz 2380665 2019-07-14T17:08:15Z 2019-07-14T17:08:15Z CONTRIBUTOR

This was branched off of https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/3127 by mistake. If both are merged, no issue.

 
{
    "total_count": 0,
    "+1": 0,
    "-1": 0,
    "laugh": 0,
    "hooray": 0,
    "confused": 0,
    "heart": 0,
    "rocket": 0,
    "eyes": 0
}
   Feature/2885 broadcast like 467862319

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]);