issue_comments

Table actions

9 rows where issue = 153126324 and user = 1217238 sorted by updated_at descending

✎ View and edit SQL

This data as json, CSV (advanced)

Suggested facets: reactions, created_at (date)

user 1

  • shoyer · 9 ✖

issue 1

  • Add a filter_by_attrs method to Dataset · 9 ✖

author_association 1

id html_url issue_url node_id user created_at updated_at ▲ author_association body reactions performed_via_github_app issue
237315106 https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/844#issuecomment-237315106 https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/844 MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDIzNzMxNTEwNg== shoyer 1217238 2016-08-03T17:53:38Z 2016-08-03T17:53:38Z MEMBER

OK, in it goes. Thanks @ocefpaf !

 
{
    "total_count": 1,
    "+1": 0,
    "-1": 0,
    "laugh": 0,
    "hooray": 1,
    "confused": 0,
    "heart": 0,
    "rocket": 0,
    "eyes": 0
}
   Add a filter_by_attrs method to Dataset 153126324
237157875 https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/844#issuecomment-237157875 https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/844 MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDIzNzE1Nzg3NQ== shoyer 1217238 2016-08-03T06:56:03Z 2016-08-03T06:56:03Z MEMBER

Anyone else have an opinion on the name? I'd like to merge this shortly before releasing v0.8.0 tomorrow.

 
{
    "total_count": 0,
    "+1": 0,
    "-1": 0,
    "laugh": 0,
    "hooray": 0,
    "confused": 0,
    "heart": 0,
    "rocket": 0,
    "eyes": 0
}
   Add a filter_by_attrs method to Dataset 153126324
237005109 https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/844#issuecomment-237005109 https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/844 MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDIzNzAwNTEwOQ== shoyer 1217238 2016-08-02T18:53:06Z 2016-08-02T18:53:06Z MEMBER

Assuming we do add the filter method, maybe filter_by_attrs?

It's nice to use names with the same prefix because they appear next to each other in auto-complete.

 
{
    "total_count": 2,
    "+1": 2,
    "-1": 0,
    "laugh": 0,
    "hooray": 0,
    "confused": 0,
    "heart": 0,
    "rocket": 0,
    "eyes": 0
}
   Add a filter_by_attrs method to Dataset 153126324
236991775 https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/844#issuecomment-236991775 https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/844 MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDIzNjk5MTc3NQ== shoyer 1217238 2016-08-02T18:10:54Z 2016-08-02T18:10:54Z MEMBER

I'm OK with the specialized get_variables_by_attributes. It doesn't need to be mutually exclusive with the more generic option. I do think the name is a mouthful, though :).

 
{
    "total_count": 0,
    "+1": 0,
    "-1": 0,
    "laugh": 0,
    "hooray": 0,
    "confused": 0,
    "heart": 0,
    "rocket": 0,
    "eyes": 0
}
   Add a filter_by_attrs method to Dataset 153126324
236986387 https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/844#issuecomment-236986387 https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/844 MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDIzNjk4NjM4Nw== shoyer 1217238 2016-08-02T17:53:45Z 2016-08-02T17:53:45Z MEMBER

@ocefpaf Good point. It probably is indeed better to write be able to write something generic like ds.filter(lambda x: x.attrs['standard_name'] == 'convective_precipitation_flux') rather the specialized to attributes ds.get_variables_by_attributes(standard_name='convective_precipitation_flux').

Another option would be simply renaming this to filter_attrs, which is more succinct.

 
{
    "total_count": 0,
    "+1": 0,
    "-1": 0,
    "laugh": 0,
    "hooray": 0,
    "confused": 0,
    "heart": 0,
    "rocket": 0,
    "eyes": 0
}
   Add a filter_by_attrs method to Dataset 153126324
226240288 https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/844#issuecomment-226240288 https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/844 MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDIyNjI0MDI4OA== shoyer 1217238 2016-06-15T16:20:11Z 2016-06-15T16:20:11Z MEMBER

Agreed -- this is almost ready. Please add to the API docs (api.rst) and do the docstring fixes.

 
{
    "total_count": 0,
    "+1": 0,
    "-1": 0,
    "laugh": 0,
    "hooray": 0,
    "confused": 0,
    "heart": 0,
    "rocket": 0,
    "eyes": 0
}
   Add a filter_by_attrs method to Dataset 153126324
219094287 https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/844#issuecomment-219094287 https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/844 MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDIxOTA5NDI4Nw== shoyer 1217238 2016-05-13T16:34:21Z 2016-05-13T16:34:21Z MEMBER

@ocefpaf We can squash on merge now in the web interface, so that makes things easier.

The appveyor build failure looks unrelated to this change -- something about conda dependencies.

 
{
    "total_count": 0,
    "+1": 0,
    "-1": 0,
    "laugh": 0,
    "hooray": 0,
    "confused": 0,
    "heart": 0,
    "rocket": 0,
    "eyes": 0
}
   Add a filter_by_attrs method to Dataset 153126324
217170260 https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/844#issuecomment-217170260 https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/844 MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDIxNzE3MDI2MA== shoyer 1217238 2016-05-05T14:33:28Z 2016-05-05T14:33:28Z MEMBER

Well, if you guys are mostly excited about using this for coordinate variables, another consistent choice would be to return a list of matching DataArrays. But if we want to return a Dataset, we should only do data variables, because it's weird to lose all the describing coordinates when you match, e.g., standard_name="air_temperature".

On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 7:05 AM, Kyle Wilcox notifications@github.com wrote:

@ocefpaf https://github.com/ocefpaf I agree that xarray model consistent should take precedence. I also use this method to (mostly) pull out coordinate variables and can continue to use netCDF4.Dataset to do that.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/844#issuecomment-217163460

 
{
    "total_count": 0,
    "+1": 0,
    "-1": 0,
    "laugh": 0,
    "hooray": 0,
    "confused": 0,
    "heart": 0,
    "rocket": 0,
    "eyes": 0
}
   Add a filter_by_attrs method to Dataset 153126324
217043510 https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/844#issuecomment-217043510 https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/844 MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDIxNzA0MzUxMA== shoyer 1217238 2016-05-05T00:05:11Z 2016-05-05T00:05:11Z MEMBER

An important design question: should this filter both data variables and coordinates or only data variables? My thought is that it's only worth filtering data variables -- filtering out unmatched coordinates is not very useful.

 
{
    "total_count": 0,
    "+1": 0,
    "-1": 0,
    "laugh": 0,
    "hooray": 0,
    "confused": 0,
    "heart": 0,
    "rocket": 0,
    "eyes": 0
}
   Add a filter_by_attrs method to Dataset 153126324

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]);