issue_comments

Table actions

3 rows where issue = 743371103 and user = 536941 sorted by updated_at descending

✖
✖
✖

✎ View and edit SQL

This data as json, CSV (advanced)

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

user 1

  • fgregg · 3 ✖

issue 1

  • Support linking to compound foreign keys · 3 ✖

author_association 1

id html_url issue_url node_id user created_at updated_at ▲ author_association body reactions issue performed_via_github_app
1402900354 https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/1099#issuecomment-1402900354 https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/1099 IC_kwDOBm6k_c5Tno-C fgregg 536941 2023-01-25T00:58:26Z 2023-01-25T00:58:26Z CONTRIBUTOR

My original idea for compound foreign keys was to turn both of those columns into links, but that doesn't fit here because database_name is already part of a different foreign key.

it's pretty hard to know what the right thing to do is if a field is part of multiple foreign keys.

but, if that's not the case, what about making each of the columns a link. seems like an improvement over the status quo.

 
{
    "total_count": 0,
    "+1": 0,
    "-1": 0,
    "laugh": 0,
    "hooray": 0,
    "confused": 0,
    "heart": 0,
    "rocket": 0,
    "eyes": 0
}
 Support linking to compound foreign keys 743371103  
1402898291 https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/1099#issuecomment-1402898291 https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/1099 IC_kwDOBm6k_c5Tnodz fgregg 536941 2023-01-25T00:55:06Z 2023-01-25T00:55:06Z CONTRIBUTOR

I went ahead and spiked something together, in #2003 

{
    "total_count": 0,
    "+1": 0,
    "-1": 0,
    "laugh": 0,
    "hooray": 0,
    "confused": 0,
    "heart": 0,
    "rocket": 0,
    "eyes": 0
}
 Support linking to compound foreign keys 743371103  
1402563930 https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/1099#issuecomment-1402563930 https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/1099 IC_kwDOBm6k_c5TmW1a fgregg 536941 2023-01-24T20:11:11Z 2023-01-24T20:11:11Z CONTRIBUTOR

hi @simonw, this bug bit me today.

the UX for linking from a table to the foreign key seems tough!

the design in the other direction seems a lot easier, for a given primary key detail page, add links back to the tables that refer to the row.

would you be open to a PR that solved the second problem but not the first?

 
{
    "total_count": 0,
    "+1": 0,
    "-1": 0,
    "laugh": 0,
    "hooray": 0,
    "confused": 0,
    "heart": 0,
    "rocket": 0,
    "eyes": 0
}
 Support linking to compound foreign keys 743371103  

Advanced export

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

CSV options: 

CREATE TABLE [issue_comments] (
   [html_url] TEXT,
   [issue_url] TEXT,
   [id] INTEGER PRIMARY KEY,
   [node_id] TEXT,
   [user] INTEGER REFERENCES [users]([id]),
   [created_at] TEXT,
   [updated_at] TEXT,
   [author_association] TEXT,
   [body] TEXT,
   [reactions] TEXT,
   [issue] INTEGER REFERENCES [issues]([id])
, [performed_via_github_app] TEXT);
CREATE INDEX [idx_issue_comments_issue]
                ON [issue_comments] ([issue]);
CREATE INDEX [idx_issue_comments_user]
                ON [issue_comments] ([user]);