issue_comments
5 rows where user = 14834132
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 512126748 | https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/537#issuecomment-512126748 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/537 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDUxMjEyNjc0OA== | SteadBytes 14834132 | 2019-07-17T06:48:35Z | 2019-07-17T06:48:35Z | NONE | It looks as if the `datasette.utils.AsgiRouter.__call__` is the place to add this https://github.com/simonw/datasette/blob/90d4f497f9b3f6a5882937c91fddb496ac3e7368/datasette/utils/asgi.py#L101 . The sentry_asgi middleware uses the `__qualname__` or `__name__` attributes of the `endpoint` https://github.com/encode/sentry-asgi/blob/c6a42d44d31f85885b79e4ee898683ecf8104971/sentry_asgi/middleware.py#L84 Looking at the Starlette implementation `endpoint` is a `Callable` https://github.com/encode/starlette/commit/34d0097feb6f057bd050d5057df5a2f96b97384e#diff-34fba745b50527bfb4245d02afd59246R100 which as far as I can tell is analogous to the `view` function which is matched here https://github.com/simonw/datasette/blob/90d4f497f9b3f6a5882937c91fddb496ac3e7368/datasette/utils/asgi.py#L96 . A slight issue is that `__qualname__` is matched *first* in the sentry_asgi middleware, and `__name__` is used if that doesn't exist. I think (please correct me if I am wrong) that for datasette, the `__name__` is what should be used. For example, when using the development fixtures and hitting `http://127.0.0.1:8001/fixtures/compound_three_primary_keys` the `view` function that is matched gives: ```python >>> view.__qualname__ 'AsgiView.as_asgi.<locals>.view' >>> view.__name__ 'TableView' ``` Would `TableView` be the desired value here? Or am I looking in entirely the wrong place? :smile: | {"total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0} | Populate "endpoint" key in ASGI scope 463544206 | |
| 512930353 | https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/537#issuecomment-512930353 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/537 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDUxMjkzMDM1Mw== | SteadBytes 14834132 | 2019-07-18T18:20:53Z | 2019-07-18T18:34:03Z | NONE | Ok great, getting the `__qualname__` to be `TableView` and adding `endpoint` to the `scope` in `AsgiRouter` is simple enough (already done). However, (unless I'm missing a plugin hook or something) the suggestion of utilising it within a `datasette-sentry` plugin may not work. The only hook that would have access to the `scope` is the `asgi_wrapper` hook. But as this _wraps_ the existing `asgi` app, the `endpoint` won't yet have been added to the `scope` received by the hook https://github.com/SteadBytes/datasette/blob/107d47567dedd472eebec7f35bc34f5b58285ba8/datasette/app.py#L672 . However, I'm not sure where else the `endpoint` could be added to the asgi scope :thinking: | {"total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0} | Populate "endpoint" key in ASGI scope 463544206 | |
| 513439736 | https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/537#issuecomment-513439736 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/537 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDUxMzQzOTczNg== | SteadBytes 14834132 | 2019-07-20T06:05:01Z | 2019-07-20T06:05:01Z | NONE | The asgi spec doesn't explicitly specify (at least as far as I can tell) whether the scope is immutable/mutable https://asgi.readthedocs.io/en/latest/specs/lifespan.html#scope . @simonw using a header for this would be a nice approach. It would also potentially increase the portability of any middleware/plugins/clients across different applications/frameworks as it's not tied directly to an asgi implementation | {"total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0} | Populate "endpoint" key in ASGI scope 463544206 | |
| 513446227 | https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/537#issuecomment-513446227 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/537 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDUxMzQ0NjIyNw== | SteadBytes 14834132 | 2019-07-20T07:50:44Z | 2019-07-20T07:50:44Z | NONE | Oh yes well spotted thank you 😁 I agree that the strictness would be nice as it could help to avoid different middleware altering the scope in incompatible ways. However I do also agree that it's likely for not all implementations to follow 🤔 | {"total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0} | Populate "endpoint" key in ASGI scope 463544206 | |
| 513652597 | https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/537#issuecomment-513652597 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/537 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDUxMzY1MjU5Nw== | SteadBytes 14834132 | 2019-07-22T06:03:18Z | 2019-07-22T06:03:18Z | NONE | @simonw do you think it is still worth populating the `endpoint` key in the scope as originally intended by this issue, or should we hold off until a decision about possibly using an `X-Endpoint` header instead? :smile: | {"total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0} | Populate "endpoint" key in ASGI scope 463544206 |
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]);