issue_comments

Table actions

3 rows where issue = 967854972 and user = 5635139 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

  • max-sixty · 3 ✖

issue 1

  • Ask PRs to annotate tests · 3 ✖

author_association 1

id html_url issue_url node_id user created_at updated_at ▲ author_association body reactions performed_via_github_app issue
978075745 https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/5694#issuecomment-978075745 https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/5694 IC_kwDOAMm_X846TEBh max-sixty 5635139 2021-11-24T17:17:29Z 2021-11-24T17:17:29Z MEMBER

Nice, thanks @dcherian .

Is anyone familiar with coveralls / whether this can be added? Is it possible to have a rule like "new functions need to be typed", by looking at the diff? That requires storing the previous results.

One other alternative is to do the work to get all the test files typed, and then enforce @mathause 's idea of check_untyped_defs on those files only.

 
{
    "total_count": 0,
    "+1": 0,
    "-1": 0,
    "laugh": 0,
    "hooray": 0,
    "confused": 0,
    "heart": 0,
    "rocket": 0,
    "eyes": 0
}
   Ask PRs to annotate tests 967854972
978059460 https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/5694#issuecomment-978059460 https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/5694 IC_kwDOAMm_X846TADE max-sixty 5635139 2021-11-24T16:57:46Z 2021-11-24T16:57:46Z MEMBER

As discussed on the call — can we get mypy coverage?

 
{
    "total_count": 0,
    "+1": 0,
    "-1": 0,
    "laugh": 0,
    "hooray": 0,
    "confused": 0,
    "heart": 0,
    "rocket": 0,
    "eyes": 0
}
   Ask PRs to annotate tests 967854972
897958480 https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/5694#issuecomment-897958480 https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/5694 IC_kwDOAMm_X841hcJQ max-sixty 5635139 2021-08-12T20:50:24Z 2021-08-12T20:50:24Z MEMBER

An alternative would be to use check_untyped_defs. However, this would be much more strict. (I tried that once but ran into mypy errors I could not fix, so I gave up.)

Ah nice! That would be better. I guess we want it for new code — it would be the herculean effort to fix the old code, most of which doesn't imply a true problem.

FWIW I think most of the false positives are when reassinging variables to different types; e.g. expected =. I guess someone could write a script to increment each new expected = to expected2 = etc, but quite the mission as well.

Is there a way of explaining the TODO in a way that's easy for new contributors to understand? That's probably the closest solution here

 
{
    "total_count": 0,
    "+1": 0,
    "-1": 0,
    "laugh": 0,
    "hooray": 0,
    "confused": 0,
    "heart": 0,
    "rocket": 0,
    "eyes": 0
}
   Ask PRs to annotate tests 967854972

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]);