issue_comments
5 rows where issue = 1359368857 sorted by updated_at descending
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
Suggested facets: created_at (date), updated_at (date)
issue 1
- fix passing of curvefit kwargs · 5 ✖
id | html_url | issue_url | node_id | user | created_at | updated_at ▲ | author_association | body | reactions | performed_via_github_app | issue |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1261259923 | https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/6978#issuecomment-1261259923 | https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/6978 | IC_kwDOAMm_X85LLUyT | dcherian 2448579 | 2022-09-28T17:50:56Z | 2022-09-28T17:50:56Z | MEMBER |
I think we may want to keep only the current behaviour (perhaps add an example to the docstring instead), and have that be consistent across the project when we wrap external functions. It's similar to what we do with Can someone open an issue to discuss this? |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
fix passing of curvefit kwargs 1359368857 | |
1256225233 | https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/6978#issuecomment-1256225233 | https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/6978 | IC_kwDOAMm_X85K4HnR | slevang 39069044 | 2022-09-23T13:38:04Z | 2022-09-23T13:38:04Z | CONTRIBUTOR |
Not sure if there are any strong opinions here? I don't see much harm in keeping it around but we could also deprecate. |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
fix passing of curvefit kwargs 1359368857 | |
1236072618 | https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/6978#issuecomment-1236072618 | https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/6978 | IC_kwDOAMm_X85JrPiq | headtr1ck 43316012 | 2022-09-03T08:09:53Z | 2022-09-11T07:16:20Z | COLLABORATOR | Is that something that will be deprecated or is it planned to keep the support for the kwargs dict forever? |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
fix passing of curvefit kwargs 1359368857 | |
1235974050 | https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/6978#issuecomment-1235974050 | https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/6978 | IC_kwDOAMm_X85Jq3ei | slevang 39069044 | 2022-09-02T23:23:51Z | 2022-09-02T23:23:51Z | CONTRIBUTOR |
Right, I guess this actually breaks the previous way of passing kwargs and that is why the docs build failed. Hmmm. To go with the current changes, thoughts on adding something like this to the parsing logic:
BTW it took me a minute to figure out what happened here because the docstring in the original PR was actually correct (requiring a dict, albeit maybe not the best way of passing kwargs), but then got changed in #5182 to suggest that kwargs could be passed on their own. I see |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
fix passing of curvefit kwargs 1359368857 | |
1235932096 | https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/6978#issuecomment-1235932096 | https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/6978 | IC_kwDOAMm_X85JqtPA | TomNicholas 35968931 | 2022-09-02T22:12:37Z | 2022-09-02T22:12:37Z | MEMBER | Thanks for doing this @slevang ! Would you mind adding a tiny regression test too? |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
fix passing of curvefit kwargs 1359368857 |
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 4