-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 26
feat: Improve migration detection APIs #688
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
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
15 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
08b0f45
feat: Add better migration detection APIs
yevgenypats 0943a5c
fmt
yevgenypats 0c21e45
more fixes
yevgenypats a3326de
more fixes
yevgenypats 99cc560
fix lint
yevgenypats f5e4cec
Update internal/memdb/memdb_test.go
yevgenypats 5ee41b2
Update internal/memdb/memdb_test.go
yevgenypats f81a0be
Update internal/memdb/memdb_test.go
yevgenypats 8ca2cd0
Update internal/memdb/memdb_test.go
yevgenypats 6ffffc8
review fix
yevgenypats d6ae733
fix review
yevgenypats 8f4d92b
Update plugins/destination/plugin_testing.go
yevgenypats 7b779bd
Update plugins/destination/plugin_testing_migrate.go
yevgenypats 5a0cc5a
Update plugins/destination/plugin_testing_migrate.go
yevgenypats 57704b8
Update plugins/destination/plugin_testing_migrate.go
yevgenypats File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It might be just semantics, but I'm a bit confused by the options here 🤔
The table in the PR description has two options for each entry:
Auto Migrate / Drop Table. I think it would be clearer if we used that terminology here, rather thanMigrateMode = forcedorMigrateMode = safe.forced/safedoesn't convey the same meaning to medrop/auto, but I think that is the intention of this configuration, right?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah I had the same dilemma if to introduce another type, but then it would be quite annoying as we will have
OverwriteForceStrategyOverwriteAutoMigrateStrategyand the same forappendso I preferred for now just to do one for each mode and then we can understand if it is being dropped or not.But I think that yes, we potentially will need to change it, I just didn't want to make it even more complex right now as I think we will need to learn a bit more about this API and usage and then do another iteration on the testing API at least.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Maybe a comment would help for now. Something like
forced == drop table,safe == do not drop table