issue_comments

Table actions

3 rows where author_association = "MEMBER" and issue = 1392878100 sorted by updated_at descending

✎ View and edit SQL

This data as json, CSV (advanced)

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

issue 1

  • New deep copy behavior in 2022.9.0 causes maximum recursion error · 3 ✖

author_association 1

  • MEMBER · 3 ✖
id html_url issue_url node_id user created_at updated_at ▲ author_association body reactions performed_via_github_app issue
1265798416 https://github.com/pydata/xarray/issues/7111#issuecomment-1265798416 https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/7111 IC_kwDOAMm_X85Lco0Q dcherian 2448579 2022-10-03T17:32:45Z 2022-10-03T19:29:28Z MEMBER

The ancillary variables stuff doesn't really fit the DataArray data model, so you have to do something.

Here's an example with Dataset and cf_xarray using the ancillary_variables attribute https://cf-xarray.readthedocs.io/en/latest/selecting.html#associated-variables

 
{
    "total_count": 0,
    "+1": 0,
    "-1": 0,
    "laugh": 0,
    "hooray": 0,
    "confused": 0,
    "heart": 0,
    "rocket": 0,
    "eyes": 0
}
   New deep copy behavior in 2022.9.0 causes maximum recursion error 1392878100
1265735072 https://github.com/pydata/xarray/issues/7111#issuecomment-1265735072 https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/7111 IC_kwDOAMm_X85LcZWg TomNicholas 35968931 2022-10-03T16:41:37Z 2022-10-03T16:41:37Z MEMBER

I was never a huge fan of putting a DataArray in the attrs of another DataArray, but nothing seemed to disallow it so I ultimately lost that argument.

Out of curiosity, why do you need to store a DataArray object as opposed to merely the values in one?

 
{
    "total_count": 0,
    "+1": 0,
    "-1": 0,
    "laugh": 0,
    "hooray": 0,
    "confused": 0,
    "heart": 0,
    "rocket": 0,
    "eyes": 0
}
   New deep copy behavior in 2022.9.0 causes maximum recursion error 1392878100
1263967757 https://github.com/pydata/xarray/issues/7111#issuecomment-1263967757 https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/7111 IC_kwDOAMm_X85LVp4N max-sixty 5635139 2022-09-30T19:59:05Z 2022-09-30T19:59:05Z MEMBER

Hmmm, python seems to deal with this reasonably for its builtins:

```python In [1]: a = [1]

In [2]: b = [a]

In [3]: a.append(b)

In [4]: import copy

In [5]: copy.deepcopy(a) Out[5]: [1, [[...]]] ```

I doubt this is getting hit that much given it requires a recursive data structure, but it does seem like a gnarly error.

Is there some feature that python uses to check whether a data structure is recursive when it's copying, which we're not taking advantage of? I can look more later.

 
{
    "total_count": 0,
    "+1": 0,
    "-1": 0,
    "laugh": 0,
    "hooray": 0,
    "confused": 0,
    "heart": 0,
    "rocket": 0,
    "eyes": 0
}
   New deep copy behavior in 2022.9.0 causes maximum recursion error 1392878100

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]);