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
Right now it sorts alphabetically by the grouping variable. But usually I then add %>% arrange(desc(dupe_count)) to start with the most-duplicated combination. I suppose this would potentially be a breaking change for some use cases. But I think it is ultimately more useful than the alphabetical sort.
Example
mtcars %>% get_dupes(cyl)
In my result, the group with cyl = 8 that has 14 records would appear first.
This would be easy to implement. Thoughts from others?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
It makes sense to me. When I use get_dupes(), the goal is either to confirm that there are no duplicates or to manually inspect them. Neither of my use cases is broken with your suggested change, and the manual inspection is improved.
My one addition would be to break a tie by sorting alphabetically second so that there is a consistent output order.
Feature requests
Sort the results of
get_dupes
bydupe_count
.Remarks
Right now it sorts alphabetically by the grouping variable. But usually I then add
%>% arrange(desc(dupe_count))
to start with the most-duplicated combination. I suppose this would potentially be a breaking change for some use cases. But I think it is ultimately more useful than the alphabetical sort.Example
mtcars %>% get_dupes(cyl)
In my result, the group with
cyl = 8
that has 14 records would appear first.This would be easy to implement. Thoughts from others?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: