issue_comments

Table actions

3 rows where author_association = "MEMBER", issue = 1535387692 and user = 14808389 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

  • keewis · 3 ✖

issue 1

  • Preserve `base` and `loffset` arguments in `resample` · 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
1460450199 https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/7444#issuecomment-1460450199 https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/7444 IC_kwDOAMm_X85XDLOX keewis 14808389 2023-03-08T16:22:19Z 2023-03-08T16:23:36Z MEMBER

I agree, those do indeed seem unrelated, and I have no idea why the python 3.11 macos CI takes that long to run.

 
{
    "total_count": 0,
    "+1": 0,
    "-1": 0,
    "laugh": 0,
    "hooray": 0,
    "confused": 0,
    "heart": 0,
    "rocket": 0,
    "eyes": 0
}
   Preserve `base` and `loffset` arguments in `resample` 1535387692
1460178545 https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/7444#issuecomment-1460178545 https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/7444 IC_kwDOAMm_X85XCI5x keewis 14808389 2023-03-08T13:46:19Z 2023-03-08T13:46:19Z MEMBER

the docs failure is real, I think we need to update https://github.com/pydata/xarray/blob/821dc24b5f3ed91b843a634bf8513a26046269ef/doc/user-guide/weather-climate.rst#L236 to use the new parameter (not sure how exactly, though)

 
{
    "total_count": 0,
    "+1": 0,
    "-1": 0,
    "laugh": 0,
    "hooray": 0,
    "confused": 0,
    "heart": 0,
    "rocket": 0,
    "eyes": 0
}
   Preserve `base` and `loffset` arguments in `resample` 1535387692
1457979204 https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/7444#issuecomment-1457979204 https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/7444 IC_kwDOAMm_X85W5v9E keewis 14808389 2023-03-07T11:08:07Z 2023-03-07T11:08:07Z MEMBER

both the failing upstream-dev CI and the failing docs CI seem to be unrelated to this. The TimeResampleGrouper seems to do something different from the one in #7561, but I think that's up to that PR to figure out (since we don't yet expose it as public API).

So considering that, how much do you think is needed until we can merge this? And can I help with anything?

 
{
    "total_count": 0,
    "+1": 0,
    "-1": 0,
    "laugh": 0,
    "hooray": 0,
    "confused": 0,
    "heart": 0,
    "rocket": 0,
    "eyes": 0
}
   Preserve `base` and `loffset` arguments in `resample` 1535387692

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]);