issue_comments

Table actions

6 rows where author_association = "MEMBER", issue = 124700322 and user = 1217238 sorted by updated_at descending

✎ View and edit SQL

This data as json, CSV (advanced)

user 1

  • shoyer · 6 ✖

issue 1

  • Basic multiIndex support and stack/unstack methods · 6 ✖

author_association 1

  • MEMBER · 6 ✖
id html_url issue_url node_id user created_at updated_at ▲ author_association body reactions performed_via_github_app issue
223054569 https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/702#issuecomment-223054569 https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/702 MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDIyMzA1NDU2OQ== shoyer 1217238 2016-06-01T16:48:54Z 2016-06-01T16:48:54Z MEMBER

No, that should be updated. Thanks for pointing it!

 
{
    "total_count": 0,
    "+1": 0,
    "-1": 0,
    "laugh": 0,
    "hooray": 0,
    "confused": 0,
    "heart": 0,
    "rocket": 0,
    "eyes": 0
}
   Basic multiIndex support and stack/unstack methods 124700322
172363285 https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/702#issuecomment-172363285 https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/702 MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDE3MjM2MzI4NQ== shoyer 1217238 2016-01-17T18:41:16Z 2016-01-17T18:41:16Z MEMBER

Thanks for taking a look. I'm writing some docs on reshaping today, then will merge this and issue the new release / rename if I have time.

On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 11:23 PM, Joe Hamman notifications@github.com wrote:

@shoyer - this is cool. I just breezed through the code and didn't see anything that jumped out at me. The main API comment I have is about the repr which has already been discussed and identified in #719.

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/702#issuecomment-172298171

 
{
    "total_count": 0,
    "+1": 0,
    "-1": 0,
    "laugh": 0,
    "hooray": 0,
    "confused": 0,
    "heart": 0,
    "rocket": 0,
    "eyes": 0
}
   Basic multiIndex support and stack/unstack methods 124700322
171453513 https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/702#issuecomment-171453513 https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/702 MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDE3MTQ1MzUxMw== shoyer 1217238 2016-01-13T22:12:06Z 2016-01-13T22:12:06Z MEMBER

hmm, is dask.array dropna not implemented? I don't see why it couldn't conceptually be done (though a bit unfamiliar with the impl)

We have a dropna in xarray. The problem is that for dask arrays, you need to know the shape of the result. With dropna, you don't know the shape until you've actually done the computation, so it can't be done lazily.

 
{
    "total_count": 0,
    "+1": 0,
    "-1": 0,
    "laugh": 0,
    "hooray": 0,
    "confused": 0,
    "heart": 0,
    "rocket": 0,
    "eyes": 0
}
   Basic multiIndex support and stack/unstack methods 124700322
171407924 https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/702#issuecomment-171407924 https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/702 MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDE3MTQwNzkyNA== shoyer 1217238 2016-01-13T19:31:51Z 2016-01-13T19:31:51Z MEMBER

@jreback thanks for the comments!

I think the repr, though technically accurate, is a bit misleading. lists of tuples is really only useful as a MI, so why not actually indicate that

Agreed -- this is part of my "better repr" TODO.

stack/unstack (as in [9]) is not idempotent, as you are reconstituting the full cartesian product of levels. This seems a bit odd though (pandas can do this because its is separately tracking what is actually in the index, via the labels), I don't think you have this though?

This is true, and definitely worth noting as a compatibility break. But I do think we have a good reason for this: pandas's stack uses dropna (effectively) to drop unused levels, but this operation cannot be done lazily with dask.array. I am happy to force users to do a non-lazy dropna explicitly.

these ops are really analogs of set_index/reset_index, rather than stack/unstack, so might be a bit confusing (though I think I get why you are doing it this way), it makes more sense esp for multi-dim. Maybe explain this in the pandas guide?

I'm not quite sure what you mean here -- set_index/reset_index seem independent of these to me (though they would definitely also be worth adding!). The difference I see: - set_index: make 1d variables part of a (multi)-index along their existing axis - stack: combine orthogonal indexes (along different axes) into a multi-index

 
{
    "total_count": 0,
    "+1": 0,
    "-1": 0,
    "laugh": 0,
    "hooray": 0,
    "confused": 0,
    "heart": 0,
    "rocket": 0,
    "eyes": 0
}
   Basic multiIndex support and stack/unstack methods 124700322
170691105 https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/702#issuecomment-170691105 https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/702 MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDE3MDY5MTEwNQ== shoyer 1217238 2016-01-11T21:11:40Z 2016-01-11T21:11:40Z MEMBER

Any opinions, even on the API here? I'd like to merge this this week...

 
{
    "total_count": 0,
    "+1": 0,
    "-1": 0,
    "laugh": 0,
    "hooray": 0,
    "confused": 0,
    "heart": 0,
    "rocket": 0,
    "eyes": 0
}
   Basic multiIndex support and stack/unstack methods 124700322
170158694 https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/702#issuecomment-170158694 https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/702 MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDE3MDE1ODY5NA== shoyer 1217238 2016-01-08T23:48:31Z 2016-01-08T23:48:31Z MEMBER

I'd like to this into the next release in something close to its current state. It's not as full featured as I would eventually like (see checklist above), but it's enough to be useful, and I'd like to get v0.7 (with the new name) out next week.

 
{
    "total_count": 0,
    "+1": 0,
    "-1": 0,
    "laugh": 0,
    "hooray": 0,
    "confused": 0,
    "heart": 0,
    "rocket": 0,
    "eyes": 0
}
   Basic multiIndex support and stack/unstack methods 124700322

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]);