You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Ran into some slightly unintuitive behaviour when misusing a join due to omission of the --no-headers flag.
When inputting two files, both without headers and trying to perform a join while forgetting the flag, the first result appears to be joined with a value that does not match. I've included a minimum reproducible example below.
As you can see, the first row of the first input is joined with the first row of the second input – even though there is a valid join for the first row in the second input, on the second line.
This is slightly counter-intuitive behaviour even considering the omission of the --no-headers flag.
Intuitively, I would expect that even with omission of the flag, the following should be output.
1,test1,a,test1
2,test2,c,test2
3,test3,d,test3
Apologies if this comes across as a little nit picky, feel free to close it if there is a good reason not to have this behaviour that I'm missing.
Cheers!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Ran into some slightly unintuitive behaviour when misusing a join due to omission of the
--no-headers
flag.When inputting two files, both without headers and trying to perform a join while forgetting the flag, the first result appears to be joined with a value that does not match. I've included a minimum reproducible example below.
input_1.csv
input_2.csv
Running the command:
> xsv join 2 input_1.csv 2 input_2.csv 1,test1,a,oops 2,test2,c,test2 3,test3,d,test3
As you can see, the first row of the first input is joined with the first row of the second input – even though there is a valid join for the first row in the second input, on the second line.
This is slightly counter-intuitive behaviour even considering the omission of the
--no-headers
flag.Intuitively, I would expect that even with omission of the flag, the following should be output.
Apologies if this comes across as a little nit picky, feel free to close it if there is a good reason not to have this behaviour that I'm missing.
Cheers!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: