issue_comments
7 rows where issue = 384004189 sorted by updated_at descending
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
Suggested facets: created_at (date), updated_at (date)
issue 1
- CF: also decode time bounds when available · 7 ✖
id | html_url | issue_url | node_id | user | created_at | updated_at ▲ | author_association | body | reactions | performed_via_github_app | issue |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
447687361 | https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/2571#issuecomment-447687361 | https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/2571 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDQ0NzY4NzM2MQ== | fmaussion 10050469 | 2018-12-16T23:40:32Z | 2018-12-16T23:40:32Z | MEMBER |
Sorry for being so slow. I just done it, will merge tomorrow once the tests pass. |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
CF: also decode time bounds when available 384004189 | |
446661848 | https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/2571#issuecomment-446661848 | https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/2571 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDQ0NjY2MTg0OA== | shoyer 1217238 | 2018-12-12T16:58:11Z | 2018-12-12T16:58:11Z | MEMBER | +1 for putting this in "Breaking changes" (we try to be pretty conservative with the definition of a strict "Enhancement"), but otherwise this looks good to me. |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
CF: also decode time bounds when available 384004189 | |
443474646 | https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/2571#issuecomment-443474646 | https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/2571 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDQ0MzQ3NDY0Ng== | spencerkclark 6628425 | 2018-12-02T02:10:22Z | 2018-12-02T02:10:22Z | MEMBER |
I for sure see this perspective. I also think a plausible case could be made that this change is like a "bug fix," that is something that people may have needed to work around before in various ways, but ultimately should not have needed to. So I think it's up to you what you think is best. If you do decide to shift it to the breaking changes section, I would suggest being a little more specific about under what circumstances the behavior is changing (i.e. this only impacts the behavior for time bounds variables defined via CF conventions that do not already have "units" and "calendar" attributes). |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
CF: also decode time bounds when available 384004189 | |
443420763 | https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/2571#issuecomment-443420763 | https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/2571 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDQ0MzQyMDc2Mw== | fmaussion 10050469 | 2018-12-01T11:51:50Z | 2018-12-01T11:51:50Z | MEMBER | Thanks! Made the change as requested. Regarding the general design:
I agree - I don't think it is a big deal either. It must also be noted that this might break some code in downstream libraries (including mine) which has built workarounds for this and will now error because the bounds are already decoded. Here also, I'm quite confident that this is an edge case but its worth mentioning. Should I put my what's new in "Breaking changes" instead? |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
CF: also decode time bounds when available 384004189 | |
443026008 | https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/2571#issuecomment-443026008 | https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/2571 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDQ0MzAyNjAwOA== | fmaussion 10050469 | 2018-11-29T23:00:10Z | 2018-12-01T11:45:09Z | MEMBER | I addressed all comments except the fixtures, which seemed a bit overkill (but I simplified the tests). Thanks! |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
CF: also decode time bounds when available 384004189 | |
441412776 | https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/2571#issuecomment-441412776 | https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/2571 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDQ0MTQxMjc3Ng== | shoyer 1217238 | 2018-11-25T03:34:46Z | 2018-11-25T03:34:46Z | MEMBER | Could we move this logic into a separate helper function? That would make things a little better organized and easier to test. |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
CF: also decode time bounds when available 384004189 | |
441380545 | https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/2571#issuecomment-441380545 | https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/2571 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDQ0MTM4MDU0NQ== | pep8speaks 24736507 | 2018-11-24T16:50:15Z | 2018-11-24T16:50:15Z | NONE | Hello @fmaussion! Thanks for submitting the PR.
|
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
CF: also decode time bounds when available 384004189 |
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