issue_comments

@Btibert3 I've opened a PR with my initial attempt at this. Would you be willing to give this a try?

https://github.com/dogsheep/google-takeout-to-sqlite/pull/5

Actually, coming back to this, I have a clearer use case for enabling fts generation for views: making it easier to bring in text from lookup tables and other joins.

The datasette documentation describes populating an fts table like so: INSERT INTO "items_fts" (rowid, name, description, category_name) SELECT items. rowid, items.name, items.description, categories.name FROM items JOIN categories ON items.category_id=categories.id; Alternatively if you have fts support in sqlite_utils for views (which sqlite and fts5 support), you can do the same thing just by creating a view that captures the above joins as columns, then creating an fts table from that view. Such an fts table can be created using sqlite_utils, where one created with your method can't.

The resulting fts table can then be used by a whole family of related tables and views in the manner you described earlier in this issue.

Hi! I don't think Prettier supports this syntax for globs: datasette/static/*[!.min].js Are you sure that works? Prettier uses https://github.com/mrmlnc/fast-glob, which in turn uses https://github.com/micromatch/micromatch, and the docs for these packages don't mention this syntax. As per the docs, square brackets should work as in regexes (foo-[1-5].js).

Tested it. Apparently, it works as a negated character class in regexes (like [^.min]). I wonder where this syntax comes from. Micromatch doesn't support that:

js micromatch(['static/table.js', 'static/n.js'], ['static/*[!.min].js']); // result: ["static/n.js"] -- brackets are treated like [!.min] in regexes, without negation

@simonw:

The problem there is that ?_size=x isn't actually doing the same thing as the SQL limit keyword.

Interesting! Although I don't think it matters too much what the underlying implementation is - I more meant that limit is familiar to developers conceptually as "up to and including this number, if they exist", whereas "size" is potentially more ambiguous. However, it's probably no big deal either way.