issue_comments
7 rows where issue = 1175648453
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
Suggested facets: created_at (date), updated_at (date)
| id ▼ | html_url | issue_url | node_id | user | created_at | updated_at | author_association | body | reactions | issue | performed_via_github_app |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1074141457 | https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/1675#issuecomment-1074141457 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/1675 | IC_kwDOBm6k_c5ABhkR | simonw 9599 | 2022-03-21T16:44:09Z | 2022-03-21T16:44:09Z | OWNER | A slightly odd thing about these methods is that they either fail silently or they raise a `Forbidden` exception. Maybe they should instead return `True` or `False` and the calling code could decide if it wants to raise the exception? That would make them more usable and a little less surprising. | {"total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0} | Extract out `check_permissions()` from `BaseView 1175648453 | |
| 1074142617 | https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/1675#issuecomment-1074142617 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/1675 | IC_kwDOBm6k_c5ABh2Z | simonw 9599 | 2022-03-21T16:45:27Z | 2022-03-21T16:45:27Z | OWNER | Though at that point `check_permission` is such a light wrapper around `self.ds.permission_allowed()` that there's little point in it existing at all. So maybe `check_permisions()` becomes `ds.permissions_allowed()`. `permission_allowed()` v.s. `permissions_allowed()` is a bit of a subtle naming difference, but I think it works. | {"total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0} | Extract out `check_permissions()` from `BaseView 1175648453 | |
| 1074143209 | https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/1675#issuecomment-1074143209 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/1675 | IC_kwDOBm6k_c5ABh_p | simonw 9599 | 2022-03-21T16:46:05Z | 2022-03-21T16:46:05Z | OWNER | The other difference though is that `ds.permission_allowed(...)` works against an actor, while `check_permission()` works against a request (though just to access `request.actor`). | {"total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0} | Extract out `check_permissions()` from `BaseView 1175648453 | |
| 1074156779 | https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/1675#issuecomment-1074156779 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/1675 | IC_kwDOBm6k_c5ABlTr | simonw 9599 | 2022-03-21T16:55:08Z | 2022-03-21T16:56:02Z | OWNER | One benefit of the current design of `check_permissions` that raises an exception is that the exception includes information on WHICH of the permission checks failed. Returning just `True` or `False` loses that information. I could return an object which evaluates to `False` but also carries extra information? Bit weird, I've never seen anything like that in other Python code. | {"total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0} | Extract out `check_permissions()` from `BaseView 1175648453 | |
| 1074158890 | https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/1675#issuecomment-1074158890 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/1675 | IC_kwDOBm6k_c5ABl0q | simonw 9599 | 2022-03-21T16:57:15Z | 2022-03-21T16:57:15Z | OWNER | Idea: `ds.permission_allowed()` continues to just return `True` or `False`. A new `ds.ensure_permissions(...)` method is added which raises a `Forbidden` exception if a check fails (hence the different name)`. | {"total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0} | Extract out `check_permissions()` from `BaseView 1175648453 | |
| 1074161523 | https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/1675#issuecomment-1074161523 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/1675 | IC_kwDOBm6k_c5ABmdz | simonw 9599 | 2022-03-21T16:59:55Z | 2022-03-21T17:00:03Z | OWNER | Also calling that function `permissions_allowed()` is confusing because there is a plugin hook with a similar name already: https://docs.datasette.io/en/stable/plugin_hooks.html#permission-allowed-datasette-actor-action-resource | {"total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0} | Extract out `check_permissions()` from `BaseView 1175648453 | |
| 1074177827 | https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/1675#issuecomment-1074177827 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/1675 | IC_kwDOBm6k_c5ABqcj | simonw 9599 | 2022-03-21T17:14:31Z | 2022-03-21T17:14:31Z | OWNER | Updated documentation: https://github.com/simonw/datasette/blob/e627510b760198ccedba9e5af47a771e847785c9/docs/internals.rst#await-ensure_permissionsactor-permissions > This method allows multiple permissions to be checked at onced. It raises a `datasette.Forbidden` exception if any of the checks are denied before one of them is explicitly granted. > > This is useful when you need to check multiple permissions at once. For example, an actor should be able to view a table if either one of the following checks returns `True` or not a single one of them returns `False`: That's pretty hard to understand! I'm going to open a separate issue to reconsider if this is a useful enough abstraction given how confusing it is. | {"total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0} | Extract out `check_permissions()` from `BaseView 1175648453 |
Advanced export
JSON shape: default, array, newline-delimited, object
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]);