issue_comments
2 rows where author_association = "NONE", "created_at" is on date 2020-10-22 and reactions = "{"total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0}" sorted by updated_at descending
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
Suggested facets: created_at (date)
id | html_url | issue_url | node_id | user | created_at | updated_at ▲ | author_association | body | reactions | issue | performed_via_github_app |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
714289680 | https://github.com/simonw/datasette/pull/1031#issuecomment-714289680 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/1031 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDcxNDI4OTY4MA== | frankier 299380 | 2020-10-22T07:23:52Z | 2020-10-22T07:23:52Z | NONE | The bug is that currently when there are databases passed in, but no -i flag, e.g. in configuration directory mode, inclusion in inspect-data.json does not automatically cause databases to be considered immutable, as described in the documentation. The reason is that the -i flag is specified multiple=True, which means when it is not passed in we will get an empty list [], rather than None. So the current code decides that no databases are immutable rather than falling back to inspect-data.json -- as is presumably intended. |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
Fallback to databases in inspect-data.json when no -i options are passed 724369025 | |
714219725 | https://github.com/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/171#issuecomment-714219725 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/171 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDcxNDIxOTcyNQ== | mhalle 649467 | 2020-10-22T04:38:35Z | 2020-10-22T04:38:35Z | NONE | Thanks. As I said, I think the result (being able to query tree structures like ancestors and descendants) is more important than the implementation, and I agree that this particular sqlite extension is too obscure. Just providing an sqlite utility to build or rebuild a transitive closure table might be more generically useful. I find that hierarchical data shows up pretty frequently in some data science problems. |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
Idea: transitive closure tables for tree structures 707407567 |
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 2