issue_comments

Table actions

1 row where "created_at" is on date 2022-10-26 and user = 4399499 sorted by updated_at descending

✎ View and edit SQL

This data as json, CSV (advanced)

Suggested facets: created_at (date), updated_at (date)

user 1

  • ocdtrekkie · 1 ✖

author_association 1

id html_url issue_url node_id user created_at updated_at ▲ author_association body reactions issue performed_via_github_app
1291277913 https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/1852#issuecomment-1291277913 https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/1852 IC_kwDOBm6k_c5M91ZZ ocdtrekkie 4399499 2022-10-26T00:26:11Z 2022-10-26T00:26:11Z NONE

On that basis, I think the model described above where tokens mainly work to provide an "act on behalf of this actor" - but with optional additional constraints - is a good one.

This is what we do for Sandstorm essentially and I fully agree it's the right way to do API tokens in multiuser systems.

Constraints will definitely be important though. I know I want a token to submit error reports programmatically, but I wouldn't want that token to convey my right to delete tables and records, Little Bobby Tables is out there somewhere, and he's all grown up now.

 
{
    "total_count": 0,
    "+1": 0,
    "-1": 0,
    "laugh": 0,
    "hooray": 0,
    "confused": 0,
    "heart": 0,
    "rocket": 0,
    "eyes": 0
}
 Default API token authentication mechanism 1421552095  

Advanced export

JSON shape: default, array, newline-delimited, object

CSV options: 

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]);