Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[ENH] Add LogPosition and CollectionVersion to Segment database model #2070

Merged

Conversation

Ishiihara
Copy link
Contributor

@Ishiihara Ishiihara commented Apr 26, 2024

Description of changes

Summarize the changes made by this PR.

  • Improvements & Bug fixes
    • This PR adds LogPosition and CollectionVersion to Segment database model.
  • New functionality
    • ...

Test plan

How are these changes tested?

  • Tests pass locally with pytest for python, yarn test for js, cargo test for rust

Documentation Changes

Are all docstrings for user-facing APIs updated if required? Do we need to make documentation changes in the docs repository?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Ishiihara commented Apr 26, 2024

Warning

This pull request is not mergeable via GitHub because a downstack PR is open. Once all requirements are satisfied, merge this PR as a stack on Graphite.
Learn more

This stack of pull requests is managed by Graphite. Learn more about stacking.

Join @Ishiihara and the rest of your teammates on Graphite Graphite

Copy link

Reviewer Checklist

Please leverage this checklist to ensure your code review is thorough before approving

Testing, Bugs, Errors, Logs, Documentation

  • Can you think of any use case in which the code does not behave as intended? Have they been tested?
  • Can you think of any inputs or external events that could break the code? Is user input validated and safe? Have they been tested?
  • If appropriate, are there adequate property based tests?
  • If appropriate, are there adequate unit tests?
  • Should any logging, debugging, tracing information be added or removed?
  • Are error messages user-friendly?
  • Have all documentation changes needed been made?
  • Have all non-obvious changes been commented?

System Compatibility

  • Are there any potential impacts on other parts of the system or backward compatibility?
  • Does this change intersect with any items on our roadmap, and if so, is there a plan for fitting them together?

Quality

  • Is this code of a unexpectedly high quality (Readability, Modularity, Intuitiveness)

@Ishiihara Ishiihara marked this pull request as ready for review April 26, 2024 22:34
@Ishiihara Ishiihara force-pushed the liquan_cache_invalidation_schema branch from e3a5883 to 52dec21 Compare April 26, 2024 23:07
@Ishiihara Ishiihara force-pushed the liquan_cache_invalidation_proto branch from 65206f1 to 46b770f Compare April 26, 2024 23:20
@Ishiihara Ishiihara force-pushed the liquan_cache_invalidation_schema branch from 52dec21 to 2ff4cc4 Compare April 26, 2024 23:20
CreatedAt time.Time `gorm:"created_at;type:timestamp;not null;default:current_timestamp"`
UpdatedAt time.Time `gorm:"updated_at;type:timestamp;not null;default:current_timestamp"`
FilePaths map[string][]string `gorm:"file_paths;serializer:json;default:'{}'"`
LogPosition int64 `gorm:"log_position;default:0"`
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think we should think a little carefully about this change and its implications. Do we want to implictly preserve the contract that this advances in lockstep with collections log position?

@Ishiihara Ishiihara force-pushed the liquan_cache_invalidation_proto branch from 69f28f8 to ddf4fef Compare August 28, 2024 17:03
@Ishiihara Ishiihara force-pushed the liquan_cache_invalidation_schema branch from 374d7c7 to 7060c41 Compare August 28, 2024 17:04
@Ishiihara Ishiihara merged commit 7060c41 into liquan_cache_invalidation_proto Aug 28, 2024
63 of 67 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants