issue_comments
16 rows where "created_at" is on date 2021-11-15 sorted by created_at
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
Suggested facets: issue_url, updated_at (date)
user 2
- simonw 15
- codecov[bot] 1
id | html_url | issue_url | node_id | user | created_at ▼ | updated_at | author_association | body | reactions | issue | performed_via_github_app |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
968401459 | https://github.com/simonw/sqlite-utils/pull/322#issuecomment-968401459 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/322 | IC_kwDOCGYnMM45uKIz | simonw 9599 | 2021-11-15T00:26:42Z | 2021-11-15T00:26:42Z | OWNER | This relates to the fact that dictionaries, lists and tuples get special treatment and are converted to JSON strings, using this code: https://github.com/simonw/sqlite-utils/blob/e8d958109ee290cfa1b44ef7a39629bb50ab673e/sqlite_utils/db.py#L2937-L2947 So the |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
Add dict type to be mapped as TEXT in sqllite 979612115 | |
968434425 | https://github.com/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/339#issuecomment-968434425 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/339 | IC_kwDOCGYnMM45uSL5 | simonw 9599 | 2021-11-15T01:42:36Z | 2021-11-15T01:42:36Z | OWNER | Here's the current signature of I'm going to add a second positional argument which can provide a dictionary of column->value to use when creating the original table and populating the initial row. If the row already exists, those columns will be ignored entirely. |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
`table.lookup()` option to populate additional columns when creating a record 1053122092 | |
968434594 | https://github.com/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/339#issuecomment-968434594 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/339 | IC_kwDOCGYnMM45uSOi | simonw 9599 | 2021-11-15T01:43:10Z | 2021-11-15T01:43:10Z | OWNER | What should I call this parameter? Django has a similar feature where it calls them |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
`table.lookup()` option to populate additional columns when creating a record 1053122092 | |
968435041 | https://github.com/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/339#issuecomment-968435041 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/339 | IC_kwDOCGYnMM45uSVh | simonw 9599 | 2021-11-15T01:44:42Z | 2021-11-15T01:44:42Z | OWNER |
Maybe this:
|
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
`table.lookup()` option to populate additional columns when creating a record 1053122092 | |
968450579 | https://github.com/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/339#issuecomment-968450579 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/339 | IC_kwDOCGYnMM45uWIT | simonw 9599 | 2021-11-15T02:02:34Z | 2021-11-15T02:02:34Z | OWNER | { "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
`table.lookup()` option to populate additional columns when creating a record 1053122092 | ||
968451954 | https://github.com/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/329#issuecomment-968451954 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/329 | IC_kwDOCGYnMM45uWdy | simonw 9599 | 2021-11-15T02:05:29Z | 2021-11-15T02:05:29Z | OWNER |
I'm not going to do this, it's unnecessary extra complexity and it means the function that fixes the column names needs to have access to the current |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
Rethink approach to [ and ] in column names (currently throws error) 1005891028 | |
968453129 | https://github.com/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/329#issuecomment-968453129 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/329 | IC_kwDOCGYnMM45uWwJ | simonw 9599 | 2021-11-15T02:07:46Z | 2021-11-15T02:07:46Z | OWNER | If I replace What should the following do?
|
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
Rethink approach to [ and ] in column names (currently throws error) 1005891028 | |
968458837 | https://github.com/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/329#issuecomment-968458837 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/329 | IC_kwDOCGYnMM45uYJV | simonw 9599 | 2021-11-15T02:21:15Z | 2021-11-15T02:21:15Z | OWNER | I'm not going to implement a fix that rewrites the |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
Rethink approach to [ and ] in column names (currently throws error) 1005891028 | |
968470212 | https://github.com/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/329#issuecomment-968470212 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/329 | IC_kwDOCGYnMM45ua7E | simonw 9599 | 2021-11-15T02:49:28Z | 2021-11-15T02:49:28Z | OWNER | I was going to replace all of the I'll keep the This avoids the whole issue of needing to rewrite parameters, and solves the immediate problem which is consuming CSV files with bad column names. |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
Rethink approach to [ and ] in column names (currently throws error) 1005891028 | |
968904414 | https://github.com/simonw/datasette/pull/1508#issuecomment-968904414 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/1508 | IC_kwDOBm6k_c45wE7e | codecov[bot] 22429695 | 2021-11-15T13:20:49Z | 2021-11-15T13:20:49Z | NONE | Codecov Report
```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ main #1508 +/-=======================================
Coverage 91.82% 91.82% Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
Update docutils requirement from <0.18 to <0.19 1053655062 | |
969433734 | https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/519#issuecomment-969433734 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/519 | IC_kwDOBm6k_c45yGKG | simonw 9599 | 2021-11-15T23:26:11Z | 2021-11-15T23:26:11Z | OWNER | I'm happy with this as the goals for 1.0. I'm going to close this issue and create three tracking tickets for the three key themes: |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
Decide what goes into Datasette 1.0 459590021 | |
969436930 | https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/448#issuecomment-969436930 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/448 | IC_kwDOBm6k_c45yG8C | simonw 9599 | 2021-11-15T23:31:58Z | 2021-11-15T23:31:58Z | OWNER | I think this SQL recipe may work instead:
|
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
_facet_array should work against views 440222719 | |
969440918 | https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/448#issuecomment-969440918 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/448 | IC_kwDOBm6k_c45yH6W | simonw 9599 | 2021-11-15T23:40:17Z | 2021-11-15T23:40:35Z | OWNER | Applied that fix to the Should never get 182 results on a page that faceting against only 172 items. |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
_facet_array should work against views 440222719 | |
969442215 | https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/448#issuecomment-969442215 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/448 | IC_kwDOBm6k_c45yIOn | simonw 9599 | 2021-11-15T23:42:03Z | 2021-11-15T23:42:03Z | OWNER | I think this code is wrong in the |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
_facet_array should work against views 440222719 | |
969446972 | https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/448#issuecomment-969446972 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/448 | IC_kwDOBm6k_c45yJY8 | simonw 9599 | 2021-11-15T23:46:13Z | 2021-11-15T23:46:13Z | OWNER | It looks like the problem here is that some of the tags occur more than once in the documents: So they get counted more than once, hence the 182 count for something that couldn't possibly return more than 172 documents. |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
_facet_array should work against views 440222719 | |
969449772 | https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/448#issuecomment-969449772 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/448 | IC_kwDOBm6k_c45yKEs | simonw 9599 | 2021-11-15T23:48:37Z | 2021-11-15T23:48:37Z | OWNER | Given this query: https://json-view-facet-bug-demo-j7hipcg4aq-uc.a.run.app/russian-ads?sql=select%0D%0A++j.value+as+value%2C%0D%0A++count%28*%29+as+count%0D%0Afrom%0D%0A++%28%0D%0A++++select%0D%0A++++++id%2C%0D%0A++++++file%2C%0D%0A++++++clicks%2C%0D%0A++++++impressions%2C%0D%0A++++++text%2C%0D%0A++++++url%2C%0D%0A++++++spend_amount%2C%0D%0A++++++spend_currency%2C%0D%0A++++++created%2C%0D%0A++++++ended%2C%0D%0A++++++target_names%0D%0A++++from%0D%0A++++++ads_with_targets%0D%0A++++where%0D%0A++++++%3Ap0+in+%28%0D%0A++++++++select%0D%0A++++++++++value%0D%0A++++++++from%0D%0A++++++++++json_each%28%5Bads_with_targets%5D.%5Btarget_names%5D%29%0D%0A++++++%29%0D%0A++%29%0D%0A++join+json_each%28target_names%29+j%0D%0Agroup+by%0D%0A++j.value%0D%0Aorder+by%0D%0A++count+desc%2C%0D%0A++value%0D%0Alimit%0D%0A++31&p0=people_who_match%3Ainterests%3AAfrican-American+culture
|
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
_facet_array should work against views 440222719 |
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]);
issue 6