issue_comments

Table actions

4 rows where issue = 298854863 and user = 2443309 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

  • jhamman · 4 ✖

issue 1

  • Use conda-forge netcdftime wherever netcdf4 was tested · 4 ✖

author_association 1

id html_url issue_url node_id user created_at updated_at ▲ author_association body reactions performed_via_github_app issue
368382269 https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/1933#issuecomment-368382269 https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/1933 MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDM2ODM4MjI2OQ== jhamman 2443309 2018-02-26T03:46:52Z 2018-02-26T03:46:52Z MEMBER

right now, conda install -c conda-forge netcdftime will give you:

netcdftime: 1.0.0a2-py36_0 conda-forge

I don't andticipate any code changes before the final release. We're still working out the documentation site and whatnot.

netcdf4 did just merge the removal of netcdftime (https://github.com/Unidata/netcdf4-python/pull/756) so this will need to go in prior to any release of netCDF4. 

{
    "total_count": 0,
    "+1": 0,
    "-1": 0,
    "laugh": 0,
    "hooray": 0,
    "confused": 0,
    "heart": 0,
    "rocket": 0,
    "eyes": 0
}
   Use conda-forge netcdftime wherever netcdf4 was tested  298854863
368203742 https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/1933#issuecomment-368203742 https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/1933 MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDM2ODIwMzc0Mg== jhamman 2443309 2018-02-24T06:11:56Z 2018-02-24T06:11:56Z MEMBER

@shoyer - do you think this is good to merge in its current state?

 
{
    "total_count": 0,
    "+1": 0,
    "-1": 0,
    "laugh": 0,
    "hooray": 0,
    "confused": 0,
    "heart": 0,
    "rocket": 0,
    "eyes": 0
}
   Use conda-forge netcdftime wherever netcdf4 was tested  298854863
367927308 https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/1933#issuecomment-367927308 https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/1933 MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDM2NzkyNzMwOA== jhamman 2443309 2018-02-23T07:01:19Z 2018-02-23T07:01:19Z MEMBER

@fmaussion - mind reviewing the updated documentation here?

 
{
    "total_count": 0,
    "+1": 0,
    "-1": 0,
    "laugh": 0,
    "hooray": 0,
    "confused": 0,
    "heart": 0,
    "rocket": 0,
    "eyes": 0
}
   Use conda-forge netcdftime wherever netcdf4 was tested  298854863
367556688 https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/1933#issuecomment-367556688 https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/1933 MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDM2NzU1NjY4OA== jhamman 2443309 2018-02-22T03:31:58Z 2018-02-22T03:31:58Z MEMBER

@fmaussion -

Is it safe to do so? I.e. can it hide bugs in the current netCDF4 time handling?

Save the one test failure here, I think this is going to be a fairly safe change. The netcdftime module in netCDF4 is being ported to a stand-alone package (see: #1048, #1920, https://github.com/Unidata/netcdf4-python/pull/756, and #https://github.com/Unidata/netcdftime/issues/20). The same test suite is being run on the netcdftime package and we've been working through a series of integration tests with xarray (mostly painless, i.e. #1929).

Also I think after #1920 it would be good to have a bit more info in the documentation about why people should switch to netcdftime or not.

Agreed. Do you think I should include that here?

 
{
    "total_count": 0,
    "+1": 0,
    "-1": 0,
    "laugh": 0,
    "hooray": 0,
    "confused": 0,
    "heart": 0,
    "rocket": 0,
    "eyes": 0
}
   Use conda-forge netcdftime wherever netcdf4 was tested  298854863

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]);