github
html_url | issue_url | id | node_id | user | created_at | updated_at | author_association | body | reactions | issue | performed_via_github_app |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/620#issuecomment-552252074 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/620 | 552252074 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDU1MjI1MjA3NA== | 9599 | 2019-11-11T00:28:28Z | 2019-11-11T00:30:53Z | OWNER | So for foreign key definitions it could look like this: `/db/table?_fk.article_id=articles.id` Or for columns and table names that themselves contain dots it could be: `/db/table?_fk.article_id={"table":"articles","column":"id"}` The value (before the =) is unambiguous -it's `?fk.XXX` where XXX could be a column name that includes periods without breaking anything. Added bonus: if you're referencing another table's single primary key you can omit the `.id` entirely (since it can be automatically detected) - so you could do `?_fk.article_id=articles`. | { "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
520667773 | |
https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/620#issuecomment-552252199 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/620 | 552252199 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDU1MjI1MjE5OQ== | 9599 | 2019-11-11T00:29:36Z | 2019-11-11T00:29:36Z | OWNER | This new `?_fk.column_name=` syntax makes me wonder if the various filters should be `?colname.contains=x` rather than `?colname__contains=x` - but that's a conversation for another time. | { "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
520667773 | |
https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/620#issuecomment-552251831 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/620 | 552251831 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDU1MjI1MTgzMQ== | 9599 | 2019-11-11T00:25:58Z | 2019-11-11T00:25:58Z | OWNER | There are three pieces of information that need to be described here: the column, the other table and the other table column. We already have a piece of API design that is similar to this: the `_through=` parameter, which looks like this: `?_through={"table":"m2m_characteristics","column":"characteristic_id","value":"1"}` I'm rethinking this syntax in #621 though to support a non-JSON variant that looks more like this: `?_through.roadside_attraction_characteristics.characteristic_id=1` | { "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
520667773 |