issue_comments

Table actions

1 row where author_association = "MEMBER", issue = 636493109 and user = 10050469 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

  • fmaussion · 1 ✖

issue 1

  • Should we make "rasterio" an engine option? · 1 ✖

author_association 1

  • MEMBER · 1 ✖
id html_url issue_url node_id user created_at updated_at ▲ author_association body reactions performed_via_github_app issue
642554262 https://github.com/pydata/xarray/issues/4142#issuecomment-642554262 https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/4142 MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDY0MjU1NDI2Mg== fmaussion 10050469 2020-06-11T10:20:02Z 2020-06-11T10:20:02Z MEMBER

As a not-so-active-but-still-interested xarray dev my opinion doesn't count much, but I would be a proponent of having the rasterio backend live outside of xarray proper.

At the time we wrote the rasterio->DataArray conversion we already noticed a lot of issues regarding differences between the two datamodels, and rio-xarray shows that there is a lot of logic and dev work necessary for this to go smoothly, which would be better handled outside of xarray. 

{
    "total_count": 0,
    "+1": 0,
    "-1": 0,
    "laugh": 0,
    "hooray": 0,
    "confused": 0,
    "heart": 0,
    "rocket": 0,
    "eyes": 0
}
   Should we make "rasterio" an engine option? 636493109

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]);