Support for FoundationDB 7.1

[PierreZ]

No description provided.

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 2370296968

• 106 of 195 (54.36%) changed or added relevant lines in 3 files are covered.
• 9 unchanged lines in 2 files lost coverage.
• Overall coverage decreased (-0.6%) to 74.597%

---

Changes Missing Coverage	Covered Lines	Changed/Added Lines	%
foundationdb/src/fdb_keys.rs	36	61	59.02%
foundationdb/src/mapped_key_values.rs	45	109	41.28%

Files with Coverage Reduction	New Missed Lines	%
foundationdb/src/tuple/subspace.rs	1	99.04%
foundationdb/src/directory/directory_layer.rs	8	92.49%

Totals
Change from base Build 2280667602:	-0.6%
Covered Lines:	4255
Relevant Lines:	5704

---

💛 - Coveralls

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Merging #61 (b2ae4f1) into main (7a838a5) will decrease coverage by 0.72%.
The diff coverage is 55.38%.

❗ Current head b2ae4f1 differs from pull request most recent head 88b61ea. Consider uploading reports for the commit 88b61ea to get more accurate results

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main      #61      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   83.52%   82.79%   -0.73%     
==========================================
  Files          24       24              
  Lines        4806     4936     +130     
==========================================
+ Hits         4014     4087      +73     
- Misses        792      849      +57     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
foundationdb-gen/src/lib.rs	0.44% <ø> (ø)
foundationdb/src/lib.rs	100.00% <ø> (ø)
foundationdb/src/future.rs	65.90% <44.76%> (-8.99%)	⬇️
foundationdb/src/transaction.rs	90.02% <100.00%> (+0.78%)	⬆️
foundationdb/src/directory/directory_partition.rs	76.86% <0.00%> (-4.48%)	⬇️
foundationdb-bindingtester/src/main.rs	89.43% <0.00%> (-0.26%)	⬇️
foundationdb/src/directory/mod.rs	94.11% <0.00%> (ø)
foundationdb/src/directory/directory_layer.rs	94.32% <0.00%> (+2.23%)	⬆️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 7a838a5...88b61ea. Read the comment docs.

[Speedy37]

Shouldn't this returns a KeySelector ?

[Speedy37]

Shouldn't this returns a KeySelector ?

[Speedy37]

A bit weird to declare it after its impls

[Speedy37]

I'm still not convinced features/macros are the best way to handle fdb versions.

I wonder if version features should be additives,

For example:
710, adds 700, 630, 620, 610, 600, 520, 510

In the code we would have to care about cfg! ordering and exclusion.

Example:

// From v600 to v630 included (i.e v600 to v700 not included)
cfg!(all(feature = "fdb-6_0", not(feature = "fdb-7_0")))
// v600 only
cfg!(all(feature = "fdb-6_0", not(feature = "fdb-6_1")))
// From v600 to now
cfg!(feature = "fdb-6_0")

[PierreZ]

Thanks for the review, your comments are in my TODO list, so I will fix them.

I'm still not convinced features/macros are the best way to handle fdb versions.

I wonder if version features should be additives,

For example: 710, adds 700, 630, 620, 610, 600, 520, 510

In the code we would have to care about cfg! ordering and exclusion.

Example:

// From v600 to v630 included (i.e v600 to v700 not included)
cfg!(all(feature = "fdb-6_0", not(feature = "fdb-7_0")))
// v600 only
cfg!(all(feature = "fdb-6_0", not(feature = "fdb-6_1")))
// From v600 to now
cfg!(feature = "fdb-6_0")

I agree. This is one of the reason the PR is in draft, I want to test a few things.

[PierreZ]

PR ready to be reviewed,I will add tenant support in a separate PR