issue_comments
9 rows where "created_at" is on date 2020-08-18 and issue = 681375466 sorted by reactions
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
Suggested facets: updated_at (date)
issue 1
- await datasette.client.get(path) mechanism for executing internal requests · 9 ✖
id | html_url | issue_url | node_id | user | created_at | updated_at | author_association | body | reactions ▼ | issue | performed_via_github_app |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
675747878 | https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/943#issuecomment-675747878 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/943 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDY3NTc0Nzg3OA== | simonw 9599 | 2020-08-18T22:18:46Z | 2020-08-18T22:19:12Z | OWNER | Could be as simple as Bit weird calling it |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
await datasette.client.get(path) mechanism for executing internal requests 681375466 | |
675748573 | https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/943#issuecomment-675748573 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/943 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDY3NTc0ODU3Mw== | simonw 9599 | 2020-08-18T22:20:52Z | 2020-08-18T22:20:52Z | OWNER | Should it default to treating things as if they had the I think I'm OK with people having to add |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
await datasette.client.get(path) mechanism for executing internal requests 681375466 | |
675749076 | https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/943#issuecomment-675749076 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/943 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDY3NTc0OTA3Ng== | simonw 9599 | 2020-08-18T22:22:21Z | 2020-08-18T22:22:21Z | OWNER | Alternative name possibilities:
|
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
await datasette.client.get(path) mechanism for executing internal requests 681375466 | |
675749319 | https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/943#issuecomment-675749319 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/943 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDY3NTc0OTMxOQ== | simonw 9599 | 2020-08-18T22:23:01Z | 2020-08-18T22:23:01Z | OWNER | Actually no -
(I'll probably add |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
await datasette.client.get(path) mechanism for executing internal requests 681375466 | |
675750382 | https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/943#issuecomment-675750382 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/943 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDY3NTc1MDM4Mg== | simonw 9599 | 2020-08-18T22:26:15Z | 2020-08-18T22:26:15Z | OWNER | Should internal requests executed in this way be handled by plugins that used the Hard to be sure one way or the other. I'm worried about logging middleware triggering twice - but actually anyone doing serious logging of their Datasette instance is probably doing it in a different layer (uvicorn logs or nginx proxy or whatever) so they wouldn't be affected. There aren't any ASGI logging middlewares out there that I've seen. Also: if you run into a situation where your stuff is breaking because So I think it DOES execute |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
await datasette.client.get(path) mechanism for executing internal requests 681375466 | |
675750845 | https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/943#issuecomment-675750845 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/943 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDY3NTc1MDg0NQ== | simonw 9599 | 2020-08-18T22:27:43Z | 2020-08-18T22:27:43Z | OWNER | What about authentication checks etc? Won't they run twice? I think that's OK too, in fact it's desirable: think of the case of |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
await datasette.client.get(path) mechanism for executing internal requests 681375466 | |
675751719 | https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/943#issuecomment-675751719 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/943 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDY3NTc1MTcxOQ== | simonw 9599 | 2020-08-18T22:30:27Z | 2020-08-18T22:30:27Z | OWNER | Right now calling I think a single |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
await datasette.client.get(path) mechanism for executing internal requests 681375466 | |
675752436 | https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/943#issuecomment-675752436 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/943 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDY3NTc1MjQzNg== | simonw 9599 | 2020-08-18T22:32:44Z | 2020-08-18T22:32:44Z | OWNER | One thing to consider here: Datasette's table and database name escaping rules can be a little bit convoluted. If a plugin wants to get back the first five rows of a table, it will need to construct a URL Here's how the It would be an improvement to have this logic abstracted out somewhere and documented so plugins can use it. |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
await datasette.client.get(path) mechanism for executing internal requests 681375466 | |
675753114 | https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/943#issuecomment-675753114 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/943 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDY3NTc1MzExNA== | simonw 9599 | 2020-08-18T22:34:55Z | 2020-08-18T22:34:55Z | OWNER | Maybe allow this:
This could cause problems if users ever need to pass literal
Not convinced this is useful - it's a bit unintuitive. |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
await datasette.client.get(path) mechanism for executing internal requests 681375466 |
Advanced export
JSON shape: default, array, newline-delimited, object
CREATE TABLE [issue_comments] ( [html_url] TEXT, [issue_url] TEXT, [id] INTEGER PRIMARY KEY, [node_id] TEXT, [user] INTEGER REFERENCES [users]([id]), [created_at] TEXT, [updated_at] TEXT, [author_association] TEXT, [body] TEXT, [reactions] TEXT, [issue] INTEGER REFERENCES [issues]([id]) , [performed_via_github_app] TEXT); CREATE INDEX [idx_issue_comments_issue] ON [issue_comments] ([issue]); CREATE INDEX [idx_issue_comments_user] ON [issue_comments] ([user]);
user 1