fang_tasks queries done #24
Conversation
src/asynk/async_queue.rs
Outdated
| .await | ||
| } | ||
| pub async fn remove_all_tasks(&mut self) -> Result<u64, AsyncQueueError> { | ||
| self.execute_one(REMOVE_ALL_TASK_QUERY, &[]).await |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this query may fail if the number of removed records is more than 1
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@ayrat555 i am sure that query will not fail because execute_one calls
https://docs.rs/tokio-postgres/0.7.0/tokio_postgres/struct.Client.html#method.execute
that do not panic! if two or n records are deleted, execute method will return as u64 2 or n, that is then number of rows affected.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
my comment was related to this check - https://github.com/ayrat555/fang/pull/24/files#diff-24272200c270b7446465f4378bfa6c16bd4a7f88837d283e84b24114d0ec3404L79
|
Merge branch commit was in order to resolve a conflict. |
src/asynk/async_queue.rs
Outdated
| assert_eq!(1, result); | ||
| let result = queue.remove_tasks_type("common").await.unwrap(); | ||
| assert_eq!(2, result); | ||
| queue.transaction.unwrap().rollback().await.unwrap(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think you don't need to roll back. it will be rolled back automatically when queue is dropped
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@ayrat555 It is true, you do not need to rollback explicitly but i think a rollback is an important operation that should be done explicitly, if you would to delete the explicit rollback, i will delete them.
| @@ -76,13 +110,6 @@ where | |||
| return Err(AsyncQueueError::PoolAndTransactionEmpty); | |||
| }; | |||
|
|
|||
| if result != 1 { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
we can rename execute_one into execute and add additional parameter - expected_result_count: Option
if let Some(expected_result) = expected_result_count {
if result != expected_result {
return Err(AsyncQueueError::ResultError {
expected: expected_result,
found: result,
});
}
}There was a problem hiding this comment.
@ayrat555 , Ok i will add this code, but we should call the function different because there is already an execute function Transaction::execute. Maybe will be better call it execute_test because we are gonna to pass an expected_result.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it's fine to call it execute. because we're adding the method to our own struct
but you can call it checked_execute if you don't like just execute
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@ayrat555 is a problem to add this parameter to expected_result_count: Option to all functions ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it's fine. but the code will be duplicated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@ayrat555 if we change all tests and only call Checked execute in the tests we can avoid the duplicated code.
what do you think ??
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@ayrat555 why would you like this error in checked_execute ?
assert_eq! macro already gives the expected value and the value given.
I have modified the code temporarily to show this example.
No description provided.