issue_comments
3 rows where author_association = "MEMBER", issue = 326205036 and user = 6213168 sorted by updated_at descending
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
Suggested facets: created_at (date), updated_at (date)
issue 1
- How should Dataset.update() handle conflicting coordinates? · 3 ✖
id | html_url | issue_url | node_id | user | created_at | updated_at ▲ | author_association | body | reactions | performed_via_github_app | issue |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
391914654 | https://github.com/pydata/xarray/issues/2180#issuecomment-391914654 | https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/2180 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDM5MTkxNDY1NA== | crusaderky 6213168 | 2018-05-25T01:32:51Z | 2018-05-25T01:33:25Z | MEMBER |
Consider this example:
I think this should be a right join. I alway think of non-index coords as N-to-1 properties of the index. For example,
|
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
How should Dataset.update() handle conflicting coordinates? 326205036 | |
391904059 | https://github.com/pydata/xarray/issues/2180#issuecomment-391904059 | https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/2180 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDM5MTkwNDA1OQ== | crusaderky 6213168 | 2018-05-25T00:15:55Z | 2018-05-25T00:15:55Z | MEMBER | Then I'm not sure I understand the change:
|
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
How should Dataset.update() handle conflicting coordinates? 326205036 | |
391900937 | https://github.com/pydata/xarray/issues/2180#issuecomment-391900937 | https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/2180 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDM5MTkwMDkzNw== | crusaderky 6213168 | 2018-05-24T23:56:55Z | 2018-05-24T23:56:55Z | MEMBER | I'm of the strong opinion that all joins should be outer joins unless the user explicitly says otherwise, as it's the approach least prone to do damage. I would humbly suggest considering the change for a future major release (0.11 / 0.12), with several minor releases before that printing futurewarnings. This said, I think that changing from a right join (0.10.3) to a left join (0.10.4) will only cause breakages without providing any actual benefit in terms of user-friendliness, so we should retain the previous behaviour. A right join vaguely makes more sense IMHO as it follows the general phylosophy of |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
How should Dataset.update() handle conflicting coordinates? 326205036 |
Advanced export
JSON shape: default, array, newline-delimited, object
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]);
user 1