html_url,issue_url,id,node_id,user,created_at,updated_at,author_association,body,reactions,issue,performed_via_github_app https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/1099#issuecomment-735444858,https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/1099,735444858,MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDczNTQ0NDg1OA==,9599,2020-11-29T19:51:58Z,2020-11-29T19:51:58Z,OWNER,"My fix in deb0be4ae56f191f121239b29e83dd53b62d6305 for #1098 was to have Datasette deliberately pretend that compound foreign keys don't exist: https://github.com/simonw/datasette/blob/deb0be4ae56f191f121239b29e83dd53b62d6305/datasette/utils/__init__.py#L470-L495 This workaround will need to be rethought to implement real support for them.","{""total_count"": 0, ""+1"": 0, ""-1"": 0, ""laugh"": 0, ""hooray"": 0, ""confused"": 0, ""heart"": 0, ""rocket"": 0, ""eyes"": 0}",743371103, https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/1099#issuecomment-749771231,https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/1099,749771231,MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDc0OTc3MTIzMQ==,9599,2020-12-22T20:54:25Z,2020-12-22T20:54:25Z,OWNER,"https://latest.datasette.io/_internal/foreign_keys (use https://latest.datasette.io/login-as-root first) is now a compound foreign key table: ```sql CREATE TABLE foreign_keys ( ""database_name"" TEXT, ""table_name"" TEXT, ""id"" INTEGER, ""seq"" INTEGER, ""table"" TEXT, ""from"" TEXT, ""to"" TEXT, ""on_update"" TEXT, ""on_delete"" TEXT, ""match"" TEXT, PRIMARY KEY (database_name, table_name, id, seq), FOREIGN KEY (database_name) REFERENCES databases(database_name), FOREIGN KEY (database_name, table_name) REFERENCES tables(database_name, table_name) ); ``` Currently the `database_name` column becomes a link (because it's a single foreign key) but the `table_name` one remains a non-link: My original idea for compound foreign keys was to turn both of those columns into links, but that doesn't fit here because `database_name` is already part of a different foreign key.","{""total_count"": 0, ""+1"": 0, ""-1"": 0, ""laugh"": 0, ""hooray"": 0, ""confused"": 0, ""heart"": 0, ""rocket"": 0, ""eyes"": 0}",743371103, https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/1099#issuecomment-749845797,https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/1099,749845797,MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDc0OTg0NTc5Nw==,9599,2020-12-23T00:13:29Z,2020-12-23T00:14:25Z,OWNER,"Also need to solve displaying these links in the opposite direction: https://latest.datasette.io/_internal/tables/fixtures,facet_cities That page should link to lists of records in columns, foreign_keys and indexes - like this example: https://latest.datasette.io/fixtures/roadside_attractions/1 ","{""total_count"": 0, ""+1"": 0, ""-1"": 0, ""laugh"": 0, ""hooray"": 0, ""confused"": 0, ""heart"": 0, ""rocket"": 0, ""eyes"": 0}",743371103, https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/1099#issuecomment-1402563930,https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/1099,1402563930,IC_kwDOBm6k_c5TmW1a,536941,2023-01-24T20:11:11Z,2023-01-24T20:11:11Z,CONTRIBUTOR,"hi @simonw, this bug bit me today. the UX for linking from a table to the foreign key seems tough! the design in the other direction seems a lot easier, for a given primary key detail page, add links back to the tables that refer to the row. would you be open to a PR that solved the second problem but not the first?","{""total_count"": 0, ""+1"": 0, ""-1"": 0, ""laugh"": 0, ""hooray"": 0, ""confused"": 0, ""heart"": 0, ""rocket"": 0, ""eyes"": 0}",743371103, https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/1099#issuecomment-1402898291,https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/1099,1402898291,IC_kwDOBm6k_c5Tnodz,536941,2023-01-25T00:55:06Z,2023-01-25T00:55:06Z,CONTRIBUTOR,"I went ahead and spiked something together, in #2003 ","{""total_count"": 0, ""+1"": 0, ""-1"": 0, ""laugh"": 0, ""hooray"": 0, ""confused"": 0, ""heart"": 0, ""rocket"": 0, ""eyes"": 0}",743371103, https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/1099#issuecomment-1402900354,https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/1099,1402900354,IC_kwDOBm6k_c5Tno-C,536941,2023-01-25T00:58:26Z,2023-01-25T00:58:26Z,CONTRIBUTOR,"> My original idea for compound foreign keys was to turn both of those columns into links, but that doesn't fit here because `database_name` is already part of a different foreign key. it's pretty hard to know what the right thing to do is if a field is part of multiple foreign keys. but, if that's not the case, what about making each of the columns a link. seems like an improvement over the status quo.","{""total_count"": 0, ""+1"": 0, ""-1"": 0, ""laugh"": 0, ""hooray"": 0, ""confused"": 0, ""heart"": 0, ""rocket"": 0, ""eyes"": 0}",743371103,