issue_comments: 622171097
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/dogsheep/github-to-sqlite/issues/33#issuecomment-622171097 | https://api.github.com/repos/dogsheep/github-to-sqlite/issues/33 | 622171097 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDYyMjE3MTA5Nw== | 9599 | 2020-04-30T23:22:45Z | 2020-04-30T23:23:57Z | MEMBER | The `auth.json` mechanism this uses is standard across all of the other Dogsheep tools - it's actually designed so you can have one `auth.json` with a bunch of different credentials for different tools: ```json { "goodreads_personal_token": "...", "goodreads_user_id": "...", "github_personal_token": "...", "pocket_consumer_key": "...", "pocket_username": "...", "pocket_access_token": "..." } ``` But... `github-to-sqlite` does feel like it deserves a special case here, since it's such a good fit for running inside of GitHub Actions - which even provide a `GITHUB_TOKEN` for you to use! So I don't think it will harm the family of tools too much if this has an environment variable alternative to the `-a` file. | {"total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0} | 609950090 |