issue_comments
4 rows where issue = 346028655 sorted by updated_at descending
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
Suggested facets: created_at (date), updated_at (date)
issue 1
- Ability to display facet counts for many-to-many relationships · 4 ✖
| id | html_url | issue_url | node_id | user | created_at | updated_at ▲ | author_association | body | reactions | issue | performed_via_github_app |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 495931140 | https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/356#issuecomment-495931140 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/356 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDQ5NTkzMTE0MA== | simonw 9599 | 2019-05-25T16:30:59Z | 2019-05-25T16:30:59Z | OWNER | I went with a much more simple URL scheme: This can be extended to be more complicated in the future if needed. |
{
"total_count": 0,
"+1": 0,
"-1": 0,
"laugh": 0,
"hooray": 0,
"confused": 0,
"heart": 0,
"rocket": 0,
"eyes": 0
} |
Ability to display facet counts for many-to-many relationships 346028655 | |
| 495931078 | https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/356#issuecomment-495931078 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/356 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDQ5NTkzMTA3OA== | simonw 9599 | 2019-05-25T16:30:09Z | 2019-05-25T16:30:09Z | OWNER | {
"total_count": 0,
"+1": 0,
"-1": 0,
"laugh": 0,
"hooray": 0,
"confused": 0,
"heart": 0,
"rocket": 0,
"eyes": 0
} |
Ability to display facet counts for many-to-many relationships 346028655 | ||
| 482620313 | https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/356#issuecomment-482620313 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/356 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDQ4MjYyMDMxMw== | simonw 9599 | 2019-04-12T15:35:44Z | 2019-04-12T15:35:44Z | OWNER | One question here is how these facets should be defined in the table page query string. 427 started exploring this.For any m2m facet we need to know:
The simplest form of m2m relationship can be automatically derived from just knowing the table. We can support that like so: ?_facet_m2m=tagged This could work automatically if the following constraints turn out to apply:
If any of the above rules don't hold, I think the solution is to have explicit configuration. Per #427 this will likely be done using JSON in the query string. Something like this (would be one line but indented for readability):
Probably also need a way of specifying the outbound column used on both us and other - if the m2m table isn't linking to the foreign keys. I don't yet like the names of the above keys. |
{
"total_count": 0,
"+1": 0,
"-1": 0,
"laugh": 0,
"hooray": 0,
"confused": 0,
"heart": 0,
"rocket": 0,
"eyes": 0
} |
Ability to display facet counts for many-to-many relationships 346028655 | |
| 409088967 | https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/356#issuecomment-409088967 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/356 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDQwOTA4ODk2Nw== | simonw 9599 | 2018-07-31T04:14:44Z | 2018-07-31T04:14:44Z | OWNER | Here's the query I'm playing with for facet counts:
|
{
"total_count": 0,
"+1": 0,
"-1": 0,
"laugh": 0,
"hooray": 0,
"confused": 0,
"heart": 0,
"rocket": 0,
"eyes": 0
} |
Ability to display facet counts for many-to-many relationships 346028655 |
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 1