issue_comments

Table actions

1 row where issue = 718238967 and user = 649467 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

  • mhalle · 1 ✖

issue 1

  • from_json jinja2 filter · 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
706302863 https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/1003#issuecomment-706302863 https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/1003 MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDcwNjMwMjg2Mw== mhalle 649467 2020-10-09T17:17:06Z 2020-10-09T17:17:06Z NONE

I agree on the descriptive and python-consistent naming. There is already a tojson, but frankly i find the "to" and "from" confusing in a text templating language where what's a string and what's data isn't 100% transparent.

 
{
    "total_count": 0,
    "+1": 0,
    "-1": 0,
    "laugh": 0,
    "hooray": 0,
    "confused": 0,
    "heart": 0,
    "rocket": 0,
    "eyes": 0
}
 from_json jinja2 filter 718238967  

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]);