Thanks for your pull request. It looks like this may be your first contribution to a Google open source project. Before we can look at your pull request, you'll need to sign a Contributor License Agreement (CLA).

📝 Please visit https://cla.developers.google.com/ to sign.

Once you've signed, please reply here (e.g. I signed it!) and we'll verify. Thanks.

• If you've already signed a CLA, it's possible we don't have your GitHub username or you're using a different email address. Check your existing CLA data and verify that your email is set on your git commits.
• If your company signed a CLA, they designated a Point of Contact who decides which employees are authorized to participate. You may need to contact the Point of Contact for your company and ask to be added to the group of authorized contributors. If you don't know who your Point of Contact is, direct the project maintainer to go/cla#troubleshoot.
• In order to pass this check, please resolve this problem and have the pull request author add another comment and the bot will run again.

I signed it!

CLAs look good, thanks!

I'd like to do a thorough review of the code (e.g. keys() and items() could be generators) but want to wait until @tswast comments on whether or not these features are desired.

I see, good point about the generators, thanks. I'd fix that but will hold off until we know more about whether these are desirable at all. The thing is that it would be great to be able to either return the row as a dict or convert it to a dict really easily, which currently is a bit of a hacky process. Thanks!

I fixed it after all; the tests seem to have run successfully :-)

I like keys() and items() to make Row act even more like a dictionary. That part LGTM.

What is your desired use for dict()? Are you using it to serialize the rows?

I'm using dict() to serialise rows into a standard dict, which I can then convert to json. As long as keys() and/or items() makes it in, I'm happy not to have dict(), simply because I can do it in my own code. Alternatively, I'm happy to write a get() method for Row instead, so it's possible to get a value in a dict-standard failsafe way. Thanks!

As long as keys() and/or items() makes it in, I'm happy not to have dict().

Yeah, I'd prefer not to have dict() since it's not a standard method and it's easy enough for someone to make their own dictionary now that there is keys() and items().

Alternatively, I'm happy to write a get() method for Row instead, so it's possible to get a value in a dict-standard failsafe way. Thanks!

Ooh, yes please to adding the get() method. That sounds great.

We found a Contributor License Agreement for you (the sender of this pull request), but were unable to find agreements for the commit author(s). If you authored these, maybe you used a different email address in the git commits than was used to sign the CLA (login here to double check)? If these were authored by someone else, then they will need to sign a CLA as well, and confirm that they're okay with these being contributed to Google.
In order to pass this check, please resolve this problem and have the pull request author add another comment and the bot will run again.

I signed it!

CLAs look good, thanks!

So dict() is now removed and get() is in place, including code checks and the tests for the module check out (not yet completed for the whole hog but that should be fine). Please let me know if there are any issues with my code I should fix. Thanks!

Thanks :-)