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/sqlite-utils/issues/66#issuecomment-553574011 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/66 | 553574011 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDU1MzU3NDAxMQ== | 9599 | 2019-11-13T19:53:45Z | 2019-11-13T19:53:45Z | OWNER | First step: add a `replace=True` argument to `insert()` and `insert_all()` that does the same thing as the current `upsert=True` https://github.com/simonw/sqlite-utils/blob/8dab9fd1ccf571e188eec9ccf606a0c50fccf200/sqlite_utils/db.py#L938-L946 | { "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
521868864 | |
https://github.com/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/66#issuecomment-553540146 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/66 | 553540146 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDU1MzU0MDE0Ng== | 9599 | 2019-11-13T18:33:30Z | 2019-11-13T18:33:30Z | OWNER | Maybe instead of inventing a new term I should tell people to use `.insert(..., replace=True)` directly. That matches `ignore=True`. | { "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
521868864 | |
https://github.com/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/66#issuecomment-553528850 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/66 | 553528850 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDU1MzUyODg1MA== | 9599 | 2019-11-13T18:04:20Z | 2019-11-13T18:04:20Z | OWNER | This is going to affect the design of the CLI subcommands as well. | { "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
521868864 | |
https://github.com/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/66#issuecomment-553528386 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/66 | 553528386 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDU1MzUyODM4Ng== | 9599 | 2019-11-13T18:03:10Z | 2019-11-13T18:03:54Z | OWNER | Maybe `inplace()` (combining "insert" and "replace")? It could be an alias for `.insert(..., replace=True)` | { "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
521868864 | |
https://github.com/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/66#issuecomment-553527384 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/66 | 553527384 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDU1MzUyNzM4NA== | 9599 | 2019-11-13T18:00:41Z | 2019-11-13T18:00:41Z | OWNER | Is `replace()` a good name here? It doesn't really convey the idea that a brand new record will be created if there isn't an existing one to replace. | { "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
521868864 | |
https://github.com/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/66#issuecomment-553526685 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/sqlite-utils/issues/66 | 553526685 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDU1MzUyNjY4NQ== | 9599 | 2019-11-13T17:58:59Z | 2019-11-13T17:58:59Z | OWNER | This warrants making a backwards compatible change, which means I'll need to bump the major version number and release 2.0. I'm going to rename the existing `upsert()` and `upsert_all()` methods to `replace()` and `replace_all()` - then write new `upsert()` and `upsert_all()` methods that implement the correct behavior. | { "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
521868864 |