issue_comments
4 rows where issue = 1332231863 and user = 35968931 sorted by updated_at descending
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
Suggested facets: reactions, created_at (date), updated_at (date)
issue 1
- Public testing framework for duck array integration · 4 ✖
id | html_url | issue_url | node_id | user | created_at | updated_at ▲ | author_association | body | reactions | performed_via_github_app | issue |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1255644395 | https://github.com/pydata/xarray/issues/6894#issuecomment-1255644395 | https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/6894 | IC_kwDOAMm_X85K15zr | TomNicholas 35968931 | 2022-09-22T23:06:21Z | 2022-09-22T23:06:21Z | MEMBER | Looks like these use these
I think they are complementary. In theory if xarray supports the array API standard and a library passes all the data array API tests, then it should also pass all of xarray's tests (rendering the latter uneccessary). But in practice I think the tests here would still be useful, if only for the possible case of libraries that don't fully meet the API standard yet would still work fine in xarray. |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
Public testing framework for duck array integration 1332231863 | |
1210187154 | https://github.com/pydata/xarray/issues/6894#issuecomment-1210187154 | https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/6894 | IC_kwDOAMm_X85IIf2S | TomNicholas 35968931 | 2022-08-10T05:42:34Z | 2022-08-10T05:42:34Z | MEMBER | Another thing that might be useful is the hypothesis strategies in the test suite for the array API consortium standard (cc @keewis). |
{ "total_count": 1, "+1": 1, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
Public testing framework for duck array integration 1332231863 | |
1209758257 | https://github.com/pydata/xarray/issues/6894#issuecomment-1209758257 | https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/6894 | IC_kwDOAMm_X85IG3Ix | TomNicholas 35968931 | 2022-08-09T18:53:58Z | 2022-08-09T18:53:58Z | MEMBER |
Thanks @Illviljan - I was literally just thinking about that here. |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
Public testing framework for duck array integration 1332231863 | |
1209519085 | https://github.com/pydata/xarray/issues/6894#issuecomment-1209519085 | https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/6894 | IC_kwDOAMm_X85IF8vt | TomNicholas 35968931 | 2022-08-09T15:17:12Z | 2022-08-09T15:17:12Z | MEMBER |
Sounds good!
Yes just
But then the user writing the test code would have to write one of their own tests per xarray method wouldn't they? I think we should avoid putting that much work on them if we can. I think your current approach seems fine so far...
That's basically technical debt, so we should make a point to remove them from xarray eventually.
So long as @benbovy (or someone) writes new tests to cover the bugs that were revealed then this is fine. |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
Public testing framework for duck array integration 1332231863 |
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