html_url,issue_url,id,node_id,user,user_label,created_at,updated_at,author_association,body,reactions,issue,issue_label,performed_via_github_app
https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/1518#issuecomment-993000787,https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/1518,993000787,IC_kwDOBm6k_c47L_1T,9599,simonw,2021-12-13T23:19:20Z,2021-12-14T17:06:05Z,OWNER,"Useful old comment here: https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/617#issuecomment-552253893

> As noted in [#621 (comment)](https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/621#issuecomment-552253208) a common pattern in this method is blocks of code that append new items to the `where_clauses`, `params` and `extra_human_descriptions` arrays. This is a useful refactoring opportunity.
> 
> Code that fits this pattern:
> 
>  * The code that builds based on the filters: `where_clauses, params = filters.build_where_clauses(table)` and `human_description_en = filters.human_description_en(extra=extra_human_descriptions)`
> * Code that handles `?_where=`: `where_clauses.extend(request.args[""_where""])` - though note that this also appends to a `extra_wheres_for_ui` array which nothing else uses
> * The `_through=` code, see [Syntax for ?_through= that works as a form field #621](https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/621) for details
> * The code that deals with `?_search=` FTS
> 
> The keyset pagination code modifies `where_clauses` and `params` too, but I don't think it's quite going to work with the same abstraction that would cover the above examples.

","{""total_count"": 0, ""+1"": 0, ""-1"": 0, ""laugh"": 0, ""hooray"": 0, ""confused"": 0, ""heart"": 0, ""rocket"": 0, ""eyes"": 0}",1058072543,Complete refactor of TableView and table.html template,
https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/526#issuecomment-993078038,https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/526,993078038,IC_kwDOBm6k_c47MSsW,536941,fgregg,2021-12-14T01:46:52Z,2021-12-14T01:46:52Z,CONTRIBUTOR,"the nested query idea is very nice, and i stole if for [my client side paginator](https://observablehq.com/d/1d5da3a3c3f2f347#DatasetteClient). However,  it won't do the right thing if the original query orders by random().

If you go the nested query route, maybe raise a 4XX status code if the query has such a clause?","{""total_count"": 0, ""+1"": 0, ""-1"": 0, ""laugh"": 0, ""hooray"": 0, ""confused"": 0, ""heart"": 0, ""rocket"": 0, ""eyes"": 0}",459882902,Stream all results for arbitrary SQL and canned queries,
https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/1518#issuecomment-993794247,https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/1518,993794247,IC_kwDOBm6k_c47PBjH,9599,simonw,2021-12-14T17:09:40Z,2021-12-14T17:09:40Z,OWNER,- `table_actions` should be an extra.,"{""total_count"": 0, ""+1"": 0, ""-1"": 0, ""laugh"": 0, ""hooray"": 0, ""confused"": 0, ""heart"": 0, ""rocket"": 0, ""eyes"": 0}",1058072543,Complete refactor of TableView and table.html template,
https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/621#issuecomment-993813210,https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/621,993813210,IC_kwDOBm6k_c47PGLa,9599,simonw,2021-12-14T17:30:13Z,2021-12-14T20:23:57Z,OWNER,"Might be able to create a web form that's unambiguous using:

`https://latest.datasette.io/fixtures/roadside_attractions?_through.[""roadside_attraction_characteristics"",""characteristic_id""]=1`

So:

```html
<input type=""text"" name=""_through.[&quot;roadside_attraction_characteristics&quot;,&quot;characteristic_id&quot;]' value=""1"">
```
I'm pretty confident this is allowed by the HTML specification. This works:

```html
<form action=""https://httpbin.org/get"">
  <input type=""text"" name='_through.[&quot;roadside_attraction_characteristics&quot;,&quot;characteristic_id&quot;]' value=""1"">
  <input type=""submit"">
</form>
```
ASGI parsing seems to work too: https://latest-with-plugins.datasette.io/-/asgi-scope?_through.[%22roadside_attraction_characteristics%22%2C%22characteristic_id%22]=1","{""total_count"": 0, ""+1"": 0, ""-1"": 0, ""laugh"": 0, ""hooray"": 0, ""confused"": 0, ""heart"": 0, ""rocket"": 0, ""eyes"": 0}",520681725,Syntax for ?_through= that works as a form field,
https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/1423#issuecomment-993876599,https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/1423,993876599,IC_kwDOBm6k_c47PVp3,6165713,plpxsk,2021-12-14T18:48:09Z,2021-12-14T18:48:09Z,NONE,"Great feature.

But what is the right way to enable this to show up? Currently, it seems I need to edit the URL to add, in the right place, `&_facet_size=max`

Is there another (easier) way to enable this feature?","{""total_count"": 0, ""+1"": 0, ""-1"": 0, ""laugh"": 0, ""hooray"": 0, ""confused"": 0, ""heart"": 0, ""rocket"": 0, ""eyes"": 0}",962391325,Show count of facet values if ?_facet_size=max,
https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/621#issuecomment-993958242,https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/621,993958242,IC_kwDOBm6k_c47Ppli,9599,simonw,2021-12-14T20:33:25Z,2021-12-14T20:33:56Z,OWNER,"Alternative idea: since current syntax is:

`?_through={""table"":""roadside_attraction_characteristics"",""column"":""characteristic_id"",""value"":""1""}`

The form-encoding-friendly syntax could be:

`?_through.{""table"":""roadside_attraction_characteristics"",""column"":""characteristic_id""}=1`

Which is more consistent than the array proposal:

`?_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}",520681725,Syntax for ?_through= that works as a form field,
https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/621#issuecomment-994005634,https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/621,994005634,IC_kwDOBm6k_c47P1KC,9599,simonw,2021-12-14T21:02:50Z,2021-12-14T21:02:50Z,OWNER,"This would also mean that an extra text input box could be easily shown on the page.

https://latest-with-plugins.datasette.io/fixtures/roadside_attractions?_through={""table"":""roadside_attraction_characteristics"",""column"":""characteristic_id"",""value"":""1""} but with the annotated box added (and made to look good):

<img width=""737"" alt=""image"" src=""https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/9599/146078853-d66e34e0-73c9-4c35-9414-5aff3bf825ee.png"">
","{""total_count"": 0, ""+1"": 0, ""-1"": 0, ""laugh"": 0, ""hooray"": 0, ""confused"": 0, ""heart"": 0, ""rocket"": 0, ""eyes"": 0}",520681725,Syntax for ?_through= that works as a form field,
https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/1518#issuecomment-994042389,https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/1518,994042389,IC_kwDOBm6k_c47P-IV,9599,simonw,2021-12-14T21:35:53Z,2021-12-14T21:35:53Z,OWNER,"Maybe a better way to approach this would be to focus on the JSON side of things - try to get a basic JSON version with `?_extra=` support working, then eventually build that up to the point where it can power the HTML version.","{""total_count"": 0, ""+1"": 0, ""-1"": 0, ""laugh"": 0, ""hooray"": 0, ""confused"": 0, ""heart"": 0, ""rocket"": 0, ""eyes"": 0}",1058072543,Complete refactor of TableView and table.html template,
https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/1518#issuecomment-994085710,https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/1518,994085710,IC_kwDOBm6k_c47QItO,9599,simonw,2021-12-14T22:03:16Z,2021-12-14T22:04:28Z,OWNER,"There are actually four forms of SQL query used by the table page:

- `from_sql` - just the `from table_name where ...`
- `sql_no_order_no_limit` - used for faceting, `""select {select_all_columns} from {table_name} {where}""`
- `sql` - the above but with order and limit clauses: `""select {select_specified_columns} from {table_name} {where}{order_by} limit {page_size}{offset}""`
- `count_sql` used for the count, built out of `from_sql`: `""select count(*) {from_sql}""`

I'm tempted to encapsulate those in a `Query` class.","{""total_count"": 0, ""+1"": 0, ""-1"": 0, ""laugh"": 0, ""hooray"": 0, ""confused"": 0, ""heart"": 0, ""rocket"": 0, ""eyes"": 0}",1058072543,Complete refactor of TableView and table.html template,