{"html_url": "https://github.com/simonw/datasette/pull/1931#issuecomment-1339916064", "issue_url": "https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/1931", "id": 1339916064, "node_id": "IC_kwDOBm6k_c5P3X8g", "user": {"value": 3556, "label": "davidbgk"}, "created_at": "2022-12-06T19:42:45Z", "updated_at": "2022-12-06T19:42:45Z", "author_association": "CONTRIBUTOR", "body": "The `\"return\": true` option is really nice!", "reactions": "{\"total_count\": 0, \"+1\": 0, \"-1\": 0, \"laugh\": 0, \"hooray\": 0, \"confused\": 0, \"heart\": 0, \"rocket\": 0, \"eyes\": 0}", "issue": {"value": 1473814539, "label": "/db/table/-/upsert"}, "performed_via_github_app": null}
{"html_url": "https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/1929#issuecomment-1339906969", "issue_url": "https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/1929", "id": 1339906969, "node_id": "IC_kwDOBm6k_c5P3VuZ", "user": {"value": 3556, "label": "davidbgk"}, "created_at": "2022-12-06T19:34:20Z", "updated_at": "2022-12-06T19:34:20Z", "author_association": "CONTRIBUTOR", "body": "I confirm that it works \ud83d\udc4d ", "reactions": "{\"total_count\": 0, \"+1\": 0, \"-1\": 0, \"laugh\": 0, \"hooray\": 0, \"confused\": 0, \"heart\": 0, \"rocket\": 0, \"eyes\": 0}", "issue": {"value": 1473659191, "label": "Incorrect link from the API explorer to the JSON API documentation"}, "performed_via_github_app": null}
{"html_url": "https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/1871#issuecomment-1309650806", "issue_url": "https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/1871", "id": 1309650806, "node_id": "IC_kwDOBm6k_c5OD692", "user": {"value": 3556, "label": "davidbgk"}, "created_at": "2022-11-10T01:38:58Z", "updated_at": "2022-11-10T01:38:58Z", "author_association": "CONTRIBUTOR", "body": "> Realized the API explorer doesn't need the API key piece at all - it can work with standard cookie-based auth.\r\n> \r\n> This also reflects how most plugins are likely to use this API, where they'll be adding JavaScript that uses `fetch()` to call the write API directly.\r\n\r\nI agree (that's what I did with the previous insert plugin), maybe a complete example using `fetch()` in the documentation would be valuable as a \u201cGetting started with the API\u201d or similar?", "reactions": "{\"total_count\": 0, \"+1\": 0, \"-1\": 0, \"laugh\": 0, \"hooray\": 0, \"confused\": 0, \"heart\": 0, \"rocket\": 0, \"eyes\": 0}", "issue": {"value": 1427293909, "label": "API explorer tool"}, "performed_via_github_app": null}
{"html_url": "https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/1552#issuecomment-996229007", "issue_url": "https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/1552", "id": 996229007, "node_id": "IC_kwDOBm6k_c47YT-P", "user": {"value": 3556, "label": "davidbgk"}, "created_at": "2021-12-16T22:04:39Z", "updated_at": "2021-12-16T22:04:39Z", "author_association": "CONTRIBUTOR", "body": "Wow, that was fast, thank you so much @simonw !\r\n\r\n> I'm also not convinced that this configuration syntax is right. It's a bit weird having a `\"facets\"` list that can either by column-name-strings or `{\"type-of-facet\": \"column-name\"}` objects. Maybe there's a better design for this?\r\n\r\nI agree that it's not ideal, my initial naive approach was to detect if it's an array, like what is done here:\r\n\r\nhttps://github.com/simonw/datasette/blob/2c07327d23d9c5cf939ada9ba4091c1b8b2ba42d/datasette/facets.py#L312-L313\r\n\r\nBut it requires an extra query to determine the type, which is a bit problematic, especially for big tables I guess.\r\n\r\nTaking a look at #510, I wonder if a `facet_delimiter` should be defined for that kind of columns (that would help our team not to have an intermediary conversion step from `foo|bar` to `[\"foo\",\"bar\"]` for instance).\r\n\r\nTo be consistent with the `--extract-column` parameter, maybe an explicit casting/delimiter would be useful: `--set-column 'Foo:Array:|'`.\r\n\r\nThrowing a lot of ideas without knowing the big picture\u2026 but sometimes newcomers have superpowers :).", "reactions": "{\"total_count\": 0, \"+1\": 0, \"-1\": 0, \"laugh\": 0, \"hooray\": 0, \"confused\": 0, \"heart\": 0, \"rocket\": 0, \"eyes\": 0}", "issue": {"value": 1078702875, "label": "Allow to set `facets_array` in metadata (like current `facets`)"}, "performed_via_github_app": null}
{"html_url": "https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/1552#issuecomment-995296725", "issue_url": "https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/1552", "id": 995296725, "node_id": "IC_kwDOBm6k_c47UwXV", "user": {"value": 3556, "label": "davidbgk"}, "created_at": "2021-12-15T23:29:32Z", "updated_at": "2021-12-15T23:29:32Z", "author_association": "CONTRIBUTOR", "body": "@simonw thank you for your fast answer and your guidance!\r\n\r\nWhile digging into the code, I found an undocumented way of doing it:\r\n\r\n```yaml\r\nfacets: [\"Facet for a column\", {\"array\": \"Facet for an array\"}]\r\n```\r\n\r\nThe only remaining problem with that solution is here: https://github.com/simonw/datasette/blob/250db8192cb8aba5eb8cd301ccc2a49525bc3d24/datasette/facets.py#L33\r\n\r\nWe have:\r\n\r\n```python\r\ntype, metadata_config = metadata_config.items()[0]\r\n```\r\n\r\nBut it requires to cast the `dict_items` as a list prior to access the first element:\r\n\r\n```python\r\ntype, metadata_config = list(metadata_config.items())[0]\r\n```\r\n\r\nI guess it's an unspotted bug? (I mean, independently of the facets-with-arrays issue.)", "reactions": "{\"total_count\": 0, \"+1\": 0, \"-1\": 0, \"laugh\": 0, \"hooray\": 0, \"confused\": 0, \"heart\": 0, \"rocket\": 0, \"eyes\": 0}", "issue": {"value": 1078702875, "label": "Allow to set `facets_array` in metadata (like current `facets`)"}, "performed_via_github_app": null}