issue_comments

Table actions

3 rows where issue = 1090229430 and user = 3698640 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

  • delgadom · 3 ✖

issue 1

  • bool(ds) should raise a "the truth value of a Dataset is ambiguous" error · 3 ✖

author_association 1

id html_url issue_url node_id user created_at updated_at ▲ author_association body reactions performed_via_github_app issue
1002777049 https://github.com/pydata/xarray/issues/6124#issuecomment-1002777049 https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/6124 IC_kwDOAMm_X847xSnZ delgadom 3698640 2021-12-29T21:09:12Z 2021-12-29T21:09:12Z CONTRIBUTOR

I realize this may be a larger discussion, but the implementation is so easy I went ahead and filed a PR that issues a PendingDeprecationWarning in Dataset.__bool__.

 
{
    "total_count": 1,
    "+1": 0,
    "-1": 0,
    "laugh": 0,
    "hooray": 0,
    "confused": 0,
    "heart": 1,
    "rocket": 0,
    "eyes": 0
}
   bool(ds) should raise a "the truth value of a Dataset is ambiguous" error 1090229430
1002673070 https://github.com/pydata/xarray/issues/6124#issuecomment-1002673070 https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/6124 IC_kwDOAMm_X847w5Ou delgadom 3698640 2021-12-29T16:22:10Z 2021-12-29T16:22:10Z CONTRIBUTOR

If there's a synthesis of keeping the truthiness while reducing the chance of these mistakes, that would be very welcome.

@max-sixty im not sure what this would look like. Do you mean a warning or are you hinting that the bar that would need to be met is a silver bullet that preserves bool(ds) but somehow isn’t confusing?

 
{
    "total_count": 0,
    "+1": 0,
    "-1": 0,
    "laugh": 0,
    "hooray": 0,
    "confused": 0,
    "heart": 0,
    "rocket": 0,
    "eyes": 0
}
   bool(ds) should raise a "the truth value of a Dataset is ambiguous" error 1090229430
1002671461 https://github.com/pydata/xarray/issues/6124#issuecomment-1002671461 https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/6124 IC_kwDOAMm_X847w41l delgadom 3698640 2021-12-29T16:18:35Z 2021-12-29T16:18:35Z CONTRIBUTOR

Yeah… I do understand how it’s currently working and why, and the behavior is certainly intuitive to those who appreciate the mapping inheritance.

That said, I feel I have to make a last stand argument because this trips people up quite often (on my team and elsewhere). I haven’t yet come across an example of anyone using this correctly, but I see users misusing it all the time.

The examples and behavior you’re showing @Illviljan seem to me like more the natural result of an implementation detail than a critical principle of the dataset design. While it’s obvious why bool(ds) resolves to True or False in the current implementation, I still think it’s not used and is out of step with how most users think of a dataset. The fact that nothing in the package requires a change in order to pass tests (the broken tests and the pathological case aside) reaffirms for me that this is not a useful feature.

I don’t know much about the mapping protocol or how closely it must be followed. Is the idea here that packages building on xarray (or interoperability features in e.g. numpy or dask) depend on a strict adherence to the full spec? 

{
    "total_count": 1,
    "+1": 1,
    "-1": 0,
    "laugh": 0,
    "hooray": 0,
    "confused": 0,
    "heart": 0,
    "rocket": 0,
    "eyes": 0
}
   bool(ds) should raise a "the truth value of a Dataset is ambiguous" error 1090229430

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]);