issues

Table actions

1 row where comments = 14, state = "open" 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)

type 1

state 1

  • open · 1 ✖

repo 1

id node_id number title user state locked assignee milestone comments created_at updated_at ▲ closed_at author_association active_lock_reason draft pull_request body reactions performed_via_github_app state_reason repo type
587895591 MDU6SXNzdWU1ODc4OTU1OTE= 3891 Keep attrs by default? (keep_attrs) max-sixty 5635139 open 0     14 2020-03-25T18:17:35Z 2023-09-22T02:27:50Z   MEMBER      

I've held this view in low confidence for a while and wanted to socialize it to see whether there's something to it: Should we keep attrs in operations by default?

Advantages: - I think most of the time people want to keep attrs after operations - Is that right? Are there cases where it wouldn't be a reasonable default? e.g. good points here for not always keeping coords around - It's easy to remove them with a (currently unimplemented) drop_attrs method when people do want to remove them

Disadvantages: - Backward incompatible change with an expensive deprecate cycle (would be impractical to have a deprecation warning every time someone ran a function on an object with attrs I think? At least without adding a once filter warning) - ?

Here are some existing relevant discussions: - https://github.com/pydata/xarray/issues/3815#issuecomment-603974527 - https://github.com/pydata/xarray/issues/688 - https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/2482 - https://github.com/pydata/xarray/issues/3304

I think this is an easy situation to get into: - We make an incorrect-but-insignificant design decision; e.g. some methods don't keep attrs - We want to change that, but avoid breaking backward-compatibility - So we add kwargs and eventually a global config - But now we have a global config that requires global context and lots of kwargs! :(

I'm up for leaning towards breaking changes if it makes the library better: I think xarray will grow immensely, and so the narrow immediate pain is worth the broader future positive impact. Clearly if the immediate pain stops xarray growing, then it's not a good tradeoff.

 
{
    "url": "https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/3891/reactions",
    "total_count": 0,
    "+1": 0,
    "-1": 0,
    "laugh": 0,
    "hooray": 0,
    "confused": 0,
    "heart": 0,
    "rocket": 0,
    "eyes": 0
}
     xarray 13221727 issue

Advanced export

JSON shape: default, array, newline-delimited, object

CSV options: 

CREATE TABLE [issues] (
   [id] INTEGER PRIMARY KEY,
   [node_id] TEXT,
   [number] INTEGER,
   [title] TEXT,
   [user] INTEGER REFERENCES [users]([id]),
   [state] TEXT,
   [locked] INTEGER,
   [assignee] INTEGER REFERENCES [users]([id]),
   [milestone] INTEGER REFERENCES [milestones]([id]),
   [comments] INTEGER,
   [created_at] TEXT,
   [updated_at] TEXT,
   [closed_at] TEXT,
   [author_association] TEXT,
   [active_lock_reason] TEXT,
   [draft] INTEGER,
   [pull_request] TEXT,
   [body] TEXT,
   [reactions] TEXT,
   [performed_via_github_app] TEXT,
   [state_reason] TEXT,
   [repo] INTEGER REFERENCES [repos]([id]),
   [type] TEXT
);
CREATE INDEX [idx_issues_repo]
    ON [issues] ([repo]);
CREATE INDEX [idx_issues_milestone]
    ON [issues] ([milestone]);
CREATE INDEX [idx_issues_assignee]
    ON [issues] ([assignee]);
CREATE INDEX [idx_issues_user]
    ON [issues] ([user]);