issue_comments
6 rows where issue = 664485022
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
Suggested facets: user, author_association, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 675259273 | https://github.com/dogsheep/github-to-sqlite/issues/46#issuecomment-675259273 | https://api.github.com/repos/dogsheep/github-to-sqlite/issues/46 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDY3NTI1OTI3Mw== | simonw 9599 | 2020-08-18T05:28:32Z | 2020-08-18T05:28:32Z | MEMBER | Oh that's interesting - i didn't realize "reviews" were a separate concept. I'd definitely accept a pull request adding those! | {"total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0} | Feature: pull request reviews and comments 664485022 | |
| 735482187 | https://github.com/dogsheep/github-to-sqlite/issues/46#issuecomment-735482187 | https://api.github.com/repos/dogsheep/github-to-sqlite/issues/46 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDczNTQ4MjE4Nw== | simonw 9599 | 2020-11-30T00:20:11Z | 2020-11-30T00:20:11Z | MEMBER | Pull request are now added, thanks to @adamjonas. | {"total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0} | Feature: pull request reviews and comments 664485022 | |
| 735482546 | https://github.com/dogsheep/github-to-sqlite/issues/46#issuecomment-735482546 | https://api.github.com/repos/dogsheep/github-to-sqlite/issues/46 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDczNTQ4MjU0Ng== | simonw 9599 | 2020-11-30T00:22:02Z | 2020-11-30T00:22:02Z | MEMBER | As for reviews... here's the output of `github-to-sqlite get https://api.github.com/repos/dogsheep/github-to-sqlite/pulls/48/reviews --accept 'application/vnd.github.v3+json'` ```json [ { "id": 503368921, "node_id": "MDE3OlB1bGxSZXF1ZXN0UmV2aWV3NTAzMzY4OTIx", "user": { "login": "simonw", "id": 9599, "node_id": "MDQ6VXNlcjk1OTk=", "avatar_url": "https://avatars0.githubusercontent.com/u/9599?u=5968723deb1a55b82620e106f5ca58e9b11a0942&v=4", "gravatar_id": "", "url": "https://api.github.com/users/simonw", "html_url": "https://github.com/simonw", "followers_url": "https://api.github.com/users/simonw/followers", "following_url": "https://api.github.com/users/simonw/following{/other_user}", "gists_url": "https://api.github.com/users/simonw/gists{/gist_id}", "starred_url": "https://api.github.com/users/simonw/starred{/owner}{/repo}", "subscriptions_url": "https://api.github.com/users/simonw/subscriptions", "organizations_url": "https://api.github.com/users/simonw/orgs", "repos_url": "https://api.github.com/users/simonw/repos", "events_url": "https://api.github.com/users/simonw/events{/privacy}", "received_events_url": "https://api.github.com/users/simonw/received_events", "type": "User", "site_admin": false }, "body": "", "state": "CHANGES_REQUESTED", "html_url": "https://github.com/dogsheep/github-to-sqlite/pull/48#pullrequestreview-503368921", "pull_request_url": "https://api.github.com/repos/dogsheep/github-to-sqlite/pulls/48", "author_association": "MEMBER", "_links": { "html": { "href": "https://github.com/dogsheep/github-to-sqlite/pull/48#pullrequestreview-503368921" }, "pull_request": { "href": "https://api.github.c… | {"total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0} | Feature: pull request reviews and comments 664485022 | |
| 735483604 | https://github.com/dogsheep/github-to-sqlite/issues/46#issuecomment-735483604 | https://api.github.com/repos/dogsheep/github-to-sqlite/issues/46 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDczNTQ4MzYwNA== | simonw 9599 | 2020-11-30T00:26:50Z | 2020-11-30T00:26:50Z | MEMBER | It seems like there's a lot missing from that - those aren't particularly interesting given the data that is returned. From the docs at https://docs.github.com/en/free-pro-team@latest/rest/reference/pulls#reviews it looks like each review consists of multiple comments, and the comments are where the useful material is - https://docs.github.com/en/free-pro-team@latest/rest/reference/pulls#list-comments-for-a-pull-request-review `github-to-sqlite get https://api.github.com/repos/dogsheep/github-to-sqlite/pulls/48/reviews/503368921/comments --accept 'application/vnd.github.v3+json'` ```json [ { "id": 500603838, "node_id": "MDI0OlB1bGxSZXF1ZXN0UmV2aWV3Q29tbWVudDUwMDYwMzgzOA==", "url": "https://api.github.com/repos/dogsheep/github-to-sqlite/pulls/comments/500603838", "pull_request_review_id": 503368921, "diff_hunk": "@@ -0,0 +1,370 @@\n+[\n+ {\n+ \"url\": \"https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/pulls/571\",\n+ \"id\": 313384926,\n+ \"node_id\": \"MDExOlB1bGxSZXF1ZXN0MzEzMzg0OTI2\",\n+ \"html_url\": \"https://github.com/simonw/datasette/pull/571\",\n+ \"diff_url\": \"https://github.com/simonw/datasette/pull/571.diff\",\n+ \"patch_url\": \"https://github.com/simonw/datasette/pull/571.patch\",\n+ \"issue_url\": \"https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/571\",\n+ \"number\": 571,\n+ \"state\": \"closed\",\n+ \"locked\": false,\n+ \"title\": \"detect_fts now works with alternative table escaping\",\n+ \"user\": {\n+ \"login\": \"simonw\",\n+ \"id\": 9599,\n+ \"node_id\": \"MDQ6VXNlcjk1OTk=\",\n+ \"avatar_url\": \"https://avatars0.githubusercontent.com/u/9599?v=4\",\n+ \"gravatar_id\": \"\",\n+ \"url\": \"https://api.github.com/users/simonw\",\n+ \"html_url\": \"https://github.com/simonw\",\n+ \"followers_url\": \"https://api.github.com/users/simonw/followers\",\n+ \"following_ur… | {"total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0} | Feature: pull request reviews and comments 664485022 | |
| 735483820 | https://github.com/dogsheep/github-to-sqlite/issues/46#issuecomment-735483820 | https://api.github.com/repos/dogsheep/github-to-sqlite/issues/46 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDczNTQ4MzgyMA== | simonw 9599 | 2020-11-30T00:27:47Z | 2020-11-30T00:27:47Z | MEMBER | So it looks like anything that pulls reviews needs to pull each review, then for each one pull the comments. I'm going to consider this blocked on smarter rate limit handling in #51. | {"total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0} | Feature: pull request reviews and comments 664485022 | |
| 1359468823 | https://github.com/dogsheep/github-to-sqlite/issues/46#issuecomment-1359468823 | https://api.github.com/repos/dogsheep/github-to-sqlite/issues/46 | IC_kwDODFdgUs5RB9kX | choldgraf 1839645 | 2022-12-20T14:39:39Z | 2022-12-20T14:40:15Z | NONE | Just a quick +1 to this one from me - I would like to do a better job of tracking who is reviewing one another's pull requests in repositories, since this is a specific kind of maintenance work that I think often goes unrewarded. I can't seem to figure this out just by looking at the `pull_request` or `issue_comments` tables, so I think it would be helpful to support PR reviews natively (even if just for summary statistics). Alternatively if there is a way in the API to tell if an issue comment is part of a review, then perhaps you could quickly calculate the number of unique reviews that an author performed. But that was beyond my SQL-foo :-) | {"total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0} | Feature: pull request reviews and comments 664485022 |
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]);