issue_comments
where issue = 169588316 and user = 1217238 sorted by updated_at descending
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
These facets timed out: author_association, issue
id | html_url | issue_url | node_id | user | created_at | updated_at ▲ | author_association | body | reactions | performed_via_github_app | issue |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
246896876 | https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/947#issuecomment-246896876 | https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/947 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDI0Njg5Njg3Ng== | shoyer 1217238 | 2016-09-14T03:35:04Z | 2016-09-14T03:35:04Z | MEMBER | OK, in it goes. Big thanks to @benbovy ! |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
Multi-index levels as coordinates 169588316 | |
246560708 | https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/947#issuecomment-246560708 | https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/947 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDI0NjU2MDcwOA== | shoyer 1217238 | 2016-09-13T03:08:37Z | 2016-09-13T03:08:37Z | MEMBER | I think the main (only?) thing left to do here is to remove the |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
Multi-index levels as coordinates 169588316 | |
244518196 | https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/947#issuecomment-244518196 | https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/947 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDI0NDUxODE5Ng== | shoyer 1217238 | 2016-09-03T01:14:48Z | 2016-09-03T01:14:48Z | MEMBER |
I think what BTW, I will be away over the holiday weekend (in the US), but I expect we will probably be able to merge this shortly after I get back. |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
Multi-index levels as coordinates 169588316 | |
244512583 | https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/947#issuecomment-244512583 | https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/947 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDI0NDUxMjU4Mw== | shoyer 1217238 | 2016-09-02T23:57:26Z | 2016-09-02T23:57:26Z | MEMBER | Rather than adding an independent |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
Multi-index levels as coordinates 169588316 | |
244142205 | https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/947#issuecomment-244142205 | https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/947 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDI0NDE0MjIwNQ== | shoyer 1217238 | 2016-09-01T16:55:12Z | 2016-09-01T16:55:12Z | MEMBER |
I would usually lean towards dedicated tests (e.g., |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
Multi-index levels as coordinates 169588316 | |
238709101 | https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/947#issuecomment-238709101 | https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/947 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDIzODcwOTEwMQ== | shoyer 1217238 | 2016-08-09T22:14:49Z | 2016-08-09T22:14:49Z | MEMBER |
Sounds good, I will do this in a separate PR. |
{ "total_count": 1, "+1": 1, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
Multi-index levels as coordinates 169588316 | |
238053642 | https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/947#issuecomment-238053642 | https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/947 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDIzODA1MzY0Mg== | shoyer 1217238 | 2016-08-06T23:07:25Z | 2016-08-06T23:07:25Z | MEMBER | I'm conflicted about how to handle the repr. On the one hand, I like how Let me try to sketch out some concrete proposals to encourage the peanut gallery to speak up: Option 1: no special indicator for the MultiIndex:
Option 2: both MultiIndex and levels in repr:
Option 3: both MultiIndex and levels in repr, different symbol for levels:
Option 4: both MultiIndex and levels in repr, different symbol for levels, with indentation:
A separate question (if we pick one of options 2-4) is how to represent the Option A: The tradeoffs here are whether or not we include the exact dtype information ( I'm currently leaning toward Option 3A, but I don't have a strong opinion. |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
Multi-index levels as coordinates 169588316 | |
238053437 | https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/947#issuecomment-238053437 | https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/947 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDIzODA1MzQzNw== | shoyer 1217238 | 2016-08-06T23:00:17Z | 2016-08-06T23:02:10Z | MEMBER | I would suggest putting the logic to create new variables for levels in the private This could get us most of the way there, but there are still a few things to watch out for:
1. What happens when you write |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
Multi-index levels as coordinates 169588316 | |
238050009 | https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/947#issuecomment-238050009 | https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/947 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDIzODA1MDAwOQ== | shoyer 1217238 | 2016-08-06T21:35:24Z | 2016-08-06T21:35:24Z | MEMBER | This is very exciting to see! A few thoughts on implementation: Instead of always creating a dictionary of level coordinates, I would add an attribute It's much cheaper to call ``` In [12]: idx = pd.MultiIndex.from_product([np.linspace(0, 1, num=500), np.arange(1000)]) In [13]: %timeit idx.get_level_values(0)[:10] 1000 loops, best of 3: 1.28 ms per loop In [14]: %timeit idx[:10].get_level_values(0) 10000 loops, best of 3: 101 µs per loop ``` It's even more extreme for larger indexes. If possible, we should use something closer to this approach when formatting coordinates.
I would actually be happy to disallow both, which might be even easy. It seems like a fine rule to say that you cannot call |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
Multi-index levels as coordinates 169588316 |
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