issue_comments
3 rows where author_association = "CONTRIBUTOR", "created_at" is on date 2018-07-14, "updated_at" is on date 2018-07-14 and user = 45057 sorted by updated_at descending
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
Suggested facets: created_at (date), updated_at (date)
user 1
- russss · 3 ✖
id | html_url | issue_url | node_id | user | created_at | updated_at ▲ | author_association | body | reactions | issue | performed_via_github_app |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
405026800 | https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/294#issuecomment-405026800 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/294 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDQwNTAyNjgwMA== | russss 45057 | 2018-07-14T14:24:31Z | 2018-07-14T14:24:31Z | CONTRIBUTOR | I had a quick look at this in relation to #343 and I feel like it might be worth modelling the inspected table metadata internally as an object rather than a dict. (We'd still have to serialise it back to JSON.) There are a few places where we rely on the structure of this metadata dict for various reasons, including in templates (and potentially also in user templates). It would be nice to have a reasonably well defined API for accessing metadata internally so that it's clearer what we're breaking. |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
inspect should record column types 327365110 | |
405026441 | https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/343#issuecomment-405026441 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/343 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDQwNTAyNjQ0MQ== | russss 45057 | 2018-07-14T14:17:14Z | 2018-07-14T14:17:14Z | CONTRIBUTOR | This probably depends on #294. |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
Render boolean fields better by default 341228846 | |
405022335 | https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/344#issuecomment-405022335 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/344 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDQwNTAyMjMzNQ== | russss 45057 | 2018-07-14T13:00:48Z | 2018-07-14T13:00:48Z | CONTRIBUTOR | Looks like this was a red herring actually, and heroku had a blip when I was testing it... |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
datasette publish heroku fails without name provided 341229113 |
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 3