issues

Table actions

2 rows where assignee = 9599, milestone = 3268330 and type = "issue" sorted by updated_at descending

✎ View and edit SQL

This data as json, CSV (advanced)

Suggested facets: created_at (date), updated_at (date), closed_at (date)

type 1

  • issue · 2 ✖

state 1

repo 1

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
456568880 MDU6SXNzdWU0NTY1Njg4ODA= 509 Support opening multiple databases with the same stem simonw 9599 closed 0 simonw 9599 Datasette 1.0 3268330 4 2019-06-15T19:32:00Z 2020-12-22T20:04:35Z 2020-12-22T20:04:35Z OWNER  

e.g. I should be able to do this:

datasette App/data.db Other_App/data.db

This currently errors because you can't have two databases taking the /data URL path.

Instead, how about in this particular case assigning the second database /data-1?

 datasette 107914493 issue     
{
    "url": "https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/509/reactions",
    "total_count": 2,
    "+1": 2,
    "-1": 0,
    "laugh": 0,
    "hooray": 0,
    "confused": 0,
    "heart": 0,
    "rocket": 0,
    "eyes": 0
}
   completed
324188953 MDU6SXNzdWUzMjQxODg5NTM= 272 Port Datasette to ASGI simonw 9599 closed 0 simonw 9599 Datasette 1.0 3268330 42 2018-05-17T21:16:32Z 2019-06-24T04:54:15Z 2019-06-24T03:33:06Z OWNER  

Datasette doesn't take much advantage of Sanic, and I'm increasingly having to work around parts of it because of idiosyncrasies that are specific to Datasette - caring about the exact order of querystring arguments for example.

Since Datasette is GET-only our needs from a web framework are actually pretty slim.

This becomes more important as I expand the plugins #14 framework. Am I sure I want the plugin ecosystem to depend on a Sanic if I might move away from it in the future?

If Datasette wasn't all about async/await I would use WSGI, but today it makes more sense to use ASGI. I'd like to be confident that switching to ASGI would still give me the excellent performance that Sanic provides.

https://github.com/django/asgiref/blob/master/specs/asgi.rst

 datasette 107914493 issue     
{
    "url": "https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/272/reactions",
    "total_count": 1,
    "+1": 1,
    "-1": 0,
    "laugh": 0,
    "hooray": 0,
    "confused": 0,
    "heart": 0,
    "rocket": 0,
    "eyes": 0
}
   completed

Advanced export

JSON shape: default, array, newline-delimited, object

CSV options: 

CREATE TABLE [issues] (
   [id] INTEGER PRIMARY KEY,
   [node_id] TEXT,
   [number] INTEGER,
   [title] TEXT,
   [user] INTEGER REFERENCES [users]([id]),
   [state] TEXT,
   [locked] INTEGER,
   [assignee] INTEGER REFERENCES [users]([id]),
   [milestone] INTEGER REFERENCES [milestones]([id]),
   [comments] INTEGER,
   [created_at] TEXT,
   [updated_at] TEXT,
   [closed_at] TEXT,
   [author_association] TEXT,
   [pull_request] TEXT,
   [body] TEXT,
   [repo] INTEGER REFERENCES [repos]([id]),
   [type] TEXT
, [active_lock_reason] TEXT, [performed_via_github_app] TEXT, [reactions] TEXT, [draft] INTEGER, [state_reason] TEXT);
CREATE INDEX [idx_issues_repo]
                ON [issues] ([repo]);
CREATE INDEX [idx_issues_milestone]
                ON [issues] ([milestone]);
CREATE INDEX [idx_issues_assignee]
                ON [issues] ([assignee]);
CREATE INDEX [idx_issues_user]
                ON [issues] ([user]);