issue_comments
11 rows where issue = 590666760 and user = 9599 sorted by updated_at descending
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
Suggested facets: created_at (date)
issue 1
- --since feature can be confused by retweets · 11 ✖
id | html_url | issue_url | node_id | user | created_at | updated_at ▲ | author_association | body | reactions | issue | performed_via_github_app |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
607010634 | https://github.com/dogsheep/twitter-to-sqlite/issues/39#issuecomment-607010634 | https://api.github.com/repos/dogsheep/twitter-to-sqlite/issues/39 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDYwNzAxMDYzNA== | simonw 9599 | 2020-04-01T03:45:16Z | 2020-04-01T03:45:16Z | MEMBER | OK, fix is applied to everything now. |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
--since feature can be confused by retweets 590666760 | |
607003655 | https://github.com/dogsheep/twitter-to-sqlite/issues/39#issuecomment-607003655 | https://api.github.com/repos/dogsheep/twitter-to-sqlite/issues/39 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDYwNzAwMzY1NQ== | simonw 9599 | 2020-04-01T03:18:00Z | 2020-04-01T03:18:00Z | MEMBER | I've got this working for the |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
--since feature can be confused by retweets 590666760 | |
606850453 | https://github.com/dogsheep/twitter-to-sqlite/issues/39#issuecomment-606850453 | https://api.github.com/repos/dogsheep/twitter-to-sqlite/issues/39 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDYwNjg1MDQ1Mw== | simonw 9599 | 2020-03-31T20:14:58Z | 2020-04-01T03:03:50Z | MEMBER | Actually I'll hard-code the population of |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
--since feature can be confused by retweets 590666760 | |
606998669 | https://github.com/dogsheep/twitter-to-sqlite/issues/39#issuecomment-606998669 | https://api.github.com/repos/dogsheep/twitter-to-sqlite/issues/39 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDYwNjk5ODY2OQ== | simonw 9599 | 2020-04-01T02:57:36Z | 2020-04-01T02:57:36Z | MEMBER | The tricky thing here is thinking about the interaction between the recorded since_id and a desire to run the initial import. The first time you run We need to record the maximum ID from those as the But what happens if our initial import is cancelled after only a few tweets? We risk never pulling in the rest of the tweets. Not sure if I need to solve this at all or if I should instead trust users to run the command a second time without I had considered letting |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
--since feature can be confused by retweets 590666760 | |
606850008 | https://github.com/dogsheep/twitter-to-sqlite/issues/39#issuecomment-606850008 | https://api.github.com/repos/dogsheep/twitter-to-sqlite/issues/39 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDYwNjg1MDAwOA== | simonw 9599 | 2020-03-31T20:13:59Z | 2020-04-01T00:23:00Z | MEMBER | Table design for type | key | since_id --- | --- | --- 1 | 124324 | 2347239847293 2 | 99ff9cefff5cbfd804f7cd43e2b27ced8addbe8d | 2125947927344 Primary compound key on
|
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
--since feature can be confused by retweets 590666760 | |
606843224 | https://github.com/dogsheep/twitter-to-sqlite/issues/39#issuecomment-606843224 | https://api.github.com/repos/dogsheep/twitter-to-sqlite/issues/39 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDYwNjg0MzIyNA== | simonw 9599 | 2020-03-31T19:59:11Z | 2020-03-31T20:06:32Z | MEMBER | Or... have a single
That last example would use the hash generated here: |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
--since feature can be confused by retweets 590666760 | |
606844521 | https://github.com/dogsheep/twitter-to-sqlite/issues/39#issuecomment-606844521 | https://api.github.com/repos/dogsheep/twitter-to-sqlite/issues/39 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDYwNjg0NDUyMQ== | simonw 9599 | 2020-03-31T20:01:39Z | 2020-03-31T20:01:39Z | MEMBER | I think |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
--since feature can be confused by retweets 590666760 | |
606824992 | https://github.com/dogsheep/twitter-to-sqlite/issues/39#issuecomment-606824992 | https://api.github.com/repos/dogsheep/twitter-to-sqlite/issues/39 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDYwNjgyNDk5Mg== | simonw 9599 | 2020-03-31T19:24:23Z | 2020-03-31T19:24:23Z | MEMBER | The
All of them use the same Question: should I have a table for each of those four methods or a single table that is used by them all? I'm leaning towards four separate tables. |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
--since feature can be confused by retweets 590666760 | |
606309165 | https://github.com/dogsheep/twitter-to-sqlite/issues/39#issuecomment-606309165 | https://api.github.com/repos/dogsheep/twitter-to-sqlite/issues/39 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDYwNjMwOTE2NQ== | simonw 9599 | 2020-03-30T23:41:31Z | 2020-03-30T23:41:31Z | MEMBER | I like the separate |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
--since feature can be confused by retweets 590666760 | |
606305701 | https://github.com/dogsheep/twitter-to-sqlite/issues/39#issuecomment-606305701 | https://api.github.com/repos/dogsheep/twitter-to-sqlite/issues/39 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDYwNjMwNTcwMQ== | simonw 9599 | 2020-03-30T23:30:27Z | 2020-03-30T23:30:27Z | MEMBER | A better alternative would be to maintain a separate table with the last seen since value for when we ran |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
--since feature can be confused by retweets 590666760 | |
606304837 | https://github.com/dogsheep/twitter-to-sqlite/issues/39#issuecomment-606304837 | https://api.github.com/repos/dogsheep/twitter-to-sqlite/issues/39 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDYwNjMwNDgzNw== | simonw 9599 | 2020-03-30T23:27:50Z | 2020-03-30T23:29:31Z | MEMBER | One option would be something like this:
|
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
--since feature can be confused by retweets 590666760 |
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