issue_comments
4 rows where issue = 346028655 and user = 9599 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