Move parallel auto ID row creation test to row.spec.ts. #13644
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description
The original purpose of this PR was to move the tests in
src/sdk/app/rows/tests/internal.spec.tsintopackages/server/src/api/routes/tests/row.spec.ts. The latter is a comprehensive suite of functional tests, and the former is just a smattering of unit tests.However, in doing this it was revealed that creating rows with auto ID columns actually ends up updating datasource entries for external datasources. This creates a huge number of document conflict errors in the rest of the tests, also signalling that this would be quite problematic in production as well. Fortunately, as of right now, you can't create auto ID columns on external datasources. We're going to prevent that and not support it going forward.
The code I wrote in #13606 actually turns out to not be more robust, either. If anything, it appeared to make it more likely to give you document conflict errors. For that reason, I've removed it in this PR and gone back to making retrying document conflict errors the responsibility of the API caller.