issues
2 rows where type = "issue" and user = 167893 sorted by updated_at descending
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
Suggested facets: created_at (date), updated_at (date), closed_at (date)
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 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1578790070 | I_kwDOCGYnMM5eGmy2 | 527 | `Table.convert()` skips falsey values | mcarpenter 167893 | closed | 0 | 5 | 2023-02-10T00:00:52Z | 2023-05-09T21:15:05Z | 2023-05-08T21:03:24Z | CONTRIBUTOR | SummaryBy design, ExampleIncrement a column of integers by one ``` python from sqlite_utils import Database db = Database(memory=True) table = db['table'] col = 'x' table.insert_all([{col: 0}, {col:1}]) print(table.get(1)) # 0 print(table.get(2)) # 1 print() table.convert(col, lambda x: x+1) print(table.get(1)) # got 0, expected 1 ⚠⚠⚠ print(table.get(2)) # got 2, expected 2 ``` Another example might be, say, transforming cells containing empty string to DiscussionThis was, I think, a pragmatic choice so that consumers can skip writing guard clauses for these falsey values (particularly from the CLI). But this surprising undocumented behavior can lead to incorrect data. I don't think this is a good trade-off between convenience and correctness. In the absence of this convenience users will either have to write guard clauses into their conversion expressions (or adapt the called function to do the same), so:
Such a change will certainly inconvenience some existing consumers; there will be some breakage. But I think this is worth it to avoid quietly not converting some values by default, which can lead to quietly bad data. I have a PR that I will attach, please take a look and see what you think. |
sqlite-utils 140912432 | issue | { "url": "https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/527/reactions", "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
completed | ||||||
1575131737 | I_kwDOCGYnMM5d4ppZ | 525 | Repeated calls to `Table.convert()` fail | mcarpenter 167893 | closed | 0 | 4 | 2023-02-07T22:40:47Z | 2023-05-08T21:59:41Z | 2023-05-08T21:54:02Z | CONTRIBUTOR | SummaryWhen using the API, repeated calls to Example```python from sqlite_utils import Database db = Database(memory=True) table = db['table'] col = 'x' table.insert_all([{col: 1}]) print(table.get(1)) table.convert(col, lambda x: x*2) print(table.get(1)) def zeroize(x): return 0 zeroize = lambda x: 0zeroize.name = 'zeroize'table.convert(col, zeroize) print(table.get(1)) ``` Output:
ExplanationThis is some relevant documentation.
There's a mismatch between the comments and the code: https://github.com/simonw/sqlite-utils/blob/fc221f9b62ed8624b1d2098e564f525c84497969/sqlite_utils/db.py#L404 but actually the existing function is returned/used instead (as the "registering custom sql functions" doc I linked above says too). Seems like this can be rectified to match the comment? Suggested fixI think there are four things:
1. The call to See also
|
sqlite-utils 140912432 | issue | { "url": "https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/525/reactions", "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
completed |
Advanced export
JSON shape: default, array, newline-delimited, object
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]);