issue_comments
5 rows where issue = 663825726 and user = 14808389 sorted by updated_at descending
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
Suggested facets: reactions, 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