issue_comments

Table actions

3 rows where author_association = "MEMBER" and issue = 220011864 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

  • Add DatetimeAccessor for accessing datetime fields via `.dt` attribute · 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
298138034 https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/1356#issuecomment-298138034 https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/1356 MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDI5ODEzODAzNA== shoyer 1217238 2017-04-29T01:19:12Z 2017-04-29T01:19:12Z MEMBER

Thanks @darothen! This is really nice

 
{
    "total_count": 0,
    "+1": 0,
    "-1": 0,
    "laugh": 0,
    "hooray": 0,
    "confused": 0,
    "heart": 0,
    "rocket": 0,
    "eyes": 0
}
   Add DatetimeAccessor for accessing datetime fields via `.dt` attribute 220011864
294595058 https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/1356#issuecomment-294595058 https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/1356 MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDI5NDU5NTA1OA== shoyer 1217238 2017-04-17T21:15:16Z 2017-04-17T21:15:16Z MEMBER

add a "time" field to DateTimeAccessor.

This would be my preferred fix.

I agree that ds['time.time'] is a little confusing but think it's unambiguous: it says get the "time" component (an array with datetime.time elements) from the "time" variable (an array of dtype=datetime64), i.e., equivalent to df['time'].dt.time in pandas.

 
{
    "total_count": 0,
    "+1": 0,
    "-1": 0,
    "laugh": 0,
    "hooray": 0,
    "confused": 0,
    "heart": 0,
    "rocket": 0,
    "eyes": 0
}
   Add DatetimeAccessor for accessing datetime fields via `.dt` attribute 220011864
294076330 https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/1356#issuecomment-294076330 https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/1356 MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDI5NDA3NjMzMA== shoyer 1217238 2017-04-14T03:18:30Z 2017-04-14T03:18:30Z MEMBER

wrt to the virtual variables, I think some more thinking is necessary so we can come up with a plan of approach. Do we want to deprecate this feature entirely?

This is a good question, possibly worth raising in a separate issue for discussion. I think they are a convenient shortcut, but they shouldn't be the primary interface.

Do we just want to wrap the datetime component virtual variables to the .dt accessor if they're datetime-like?

Yes, certainly. We definitely don't want to have two separate implementations of datetime components in the code base.

 
{
    "total_count": 0,
    "+1": 0,
    "-1": 0,
    "laugh": 0,
    "hooray": 0,
    "confused": 0,
    "heart": 0,
    "rocket": 0,
    "eyes": 0
}
   Add DatetimeAccessor for accessing datetime fields via `.dt` attribute 220011864

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]);