issue_comments: 1385807684
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/262#issuecomment-1385807684 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/262 | 1385807684 | IC_kwDOBm6k_c5Smb9E | 9599 | 2023-01-17T17:51:54Z | 2023-01-19T23:20:59Z | OWNER | In most cases, the `?_extra=xxx` name exactly corresponds to the additional key that is added to the JSON. `?_facet=...` is one example of a query string argument that causes an extra key - `"facet_results"` - to be added to the JSON even though it wasn't requested by name in a `?_extra=`. Am I OK with that? I think so. Related issue: - #1558 Actually there's an edge-case here that's worth considering: it's possible to use metadata to set default facets for a table. If you do this for a table, then `.json` for that table will always calculate and return those facets - which may be an expensive and unnecessary operation. So maybe we don't include `facet_results` in the JSON unless explicitly asked for in that case, but have a rule that `?_facet` implies `?_extra=facet_results`. | {"total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0} | 323658641 |