issue_comments

Table actions

1 row where issue = 627794879 and user = 222245 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

  • carlmjohnson · 1 ✖

issue 1

  • Redesign default .json format · 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
712569695 https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/782#issuecomment-712569695 https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/782 MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDcxMjU2OTY5NQ== carlmjohnson 222245 2020-10-20T03:45:48Z 2020-10-20T03:46:14Z NONE

I vote against headers. It has a lot of strikes against it: poor discoverability, new developers often don’t know how to use them, makes CORS harder, makes it hard to use eg with JQ, needs ad hoc specification for each bit of metadata, etc.

The only advantage of headers is that you don’t need to do .rows, but that’s actually good as a data validation step anyway—if .rows is missing assume there’s an error and do your error handling path instead of parsing the rest.

 
{
    "total_count": 1,
    "+1": 1,
    "-1": 0,
    "laugh": 0,
    "hooray": 0,
    "confused": 0,
    "heart": 0,
    "rocket": 0,
    "eyes": 0
}
 Redesign default .json format 627794879  

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]);