issue_comments
5 rows where issue = 663825726 and user = 14808389 sorted by updated_at descending
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
Suggested facets: reactions, created_at (date), updated_at (date)
issue 1
- allow customizing the inline repr of a duck array · 5 ✖
id | html_url | issue_url | node_id | user | created_at | updated_at ▲ | author_association | body | reactions | performed_via_github_app | issue |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
669616000 | https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/4248#issuecomment-669616000 | https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/4248 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDY2OTYxNjAwMA== | keewis 14808389 | 2020-08-06T00:37:41Z | 2020-08-06T00:37:41Z | MEMBER | should be ready for review again |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
allow customizing the inline repr of a duck array 663825726 | |
669597198 | https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/4248#issuecomment-669597198 | https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/4248 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDY2OTU5NzE5OA== | keewis 14808389 | 2020-08-05T23:31:19Z | 2020-08-05T23:31:19Z | MEMBER | I put it into internals for now, together with a small paragraph about the requirements on duck arrays, but this should definitely be extended and moved somewhere more visible – maybe a I also added a test, but it feels a bit strange to compare the result with the return value of a direct call to the object's |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
allow customizing the inline repr of a duck array 663825726 | |
669576665 | https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/4248#issuecomment-669576665 | https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/4248 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDY2OTU3NjY2NQ== | keewis 14808389 | 2020-08-05T22:47:13Z | 2020-08-05T22:47:13Z | MEMBER | tests are a good point, and I guess this should also be documented somewhere. Any ideas where that could be? Internals? |
{ "total_count": 1, "+1": 1, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
allow customizing the inline repr of a duck array 663825726 | |
669564552 | https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/4248#issuecomment-669564552 | https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/4248 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDY2OTU2NDU1Mg== | keewis 14808389 | 2020-08-05T22:39:42Z | 2020-08-05T22:39:42Z | MEMBER | if I remember correctly, this was accepted in this week's community meeting. Should this be merged, then? |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
allow customizing the inline repr of a duck array 663825726 | |
669289892 | https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/4248#issuecomment-669289892 | https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/4248 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDY2OTI4OTg5Mg== | keewis 14808389 | 2020-08-05T16:17:55Z | 2020-08-05T16:17:55Z | MEMBER |
exactly, that's where the name came from. Also, if consistency with the functions in |
{ "total_count": 2, "+1": 2, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
allow customizing the inline repr of a duck array 663825726 |
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