id,node_id,number,title,user,state,locked,assignee,milestone,comments,created_at,updated_at,closed_at,author_association,pull_request,body,repo,type,active_lock_reason,performed_via_github_app,reactions,draft,state_reason
1000779422,PR_kwDOBm6k_c4r9CTw,1474,Update full_text_search.rst,72577720,closed,0,,,0,2021-09-20T09:59:45Z,2021-10-13T21:10:23Z,2021-10-13T21:10:23Z,CONTRIBUTOR,simonw/datasette/pulls/1474,"Change ""above"" to ""below"" to correct correspondence of reference to example.",107914493,pull,,,"{""url"": ""https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/1474/reactions"", ""total_count"": 0, ""+1"": 0, ""-1"": 0, ""laugh"": 0, ""hooray"": 0, ""confused"": 0, ""heart"": 0, ""rocket"": 0, ""eyes"": 0}",0,
1001104942,PR_kwDOBm6k_c4r-EVH,1475,feat: allow joins using _through in both directions,5268174,open,0,,,0,2021-09-20T15:28:20Z,2021-09-20T15:28:20Z,,FIRST_TIME_CONTRIBUTOR,simonw/datasette/pulls/1475,"Currently the `_through` clause can only work if the FK relationship is defined in a specific direction. I don't think there is any reason for this limitation, as an FK allows joining in both directions.

This is an admittedly hacky change to implement bidirectional joins using `_through`. It does work for our use-case, but I don't know if there are other implications that I haven't thought of. Also if this change is desirable we probably want to make the code a little nicer.",107914493,pull,,,"{""url"": ""https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/1475/reactions"", ""total_count"": 0, ""+1"": 0, ""-1"": 0, ""laugh"": 0, ""hooray"": 0, ""confused"": 0, ""heart"": 0, ""rocket"": 0, ""eyes"": 0}",0,