issue_comments: 482620313
This data as json
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/356#issuecomment-482620313 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/356 | 482620313 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDQ4MjYyMDMxMw== | 9599 | 2019-04-12T15:35:44Z | 2019-04-12T15:35:44Z | OWNER | One question here is how these facets should be defined in the table page query string. 427 started exploring this.For any m2m facet we need to know:
The simplest form of m2m relationship can be automatically derived from just knowing the table. We can support that like so: ?_facet_m2m=tagged This could work automatically if the following constraints turn out to apply:
If any of the above rules don't hold, I think the solution is to have explicit configuration. Per #427 this will likely be done using JSON in the query string. Something like this (would be one line but indented for readability):
Probably also need a way of specifying the outbound column used on both us and other - if the m2m table isn't linking to the foreign keys. I don't yet like the names of the above keys. |
{ "total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0 } |
346028655 |