Save routing fees in database #949
Conversation
|
|
||
| #[derive(Insertable, Debug, PartialEq)] | ||
| #[diesel(table_name = routing_fees)] | ||
| struct NewRoutingFee { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🤔 is it really necessary to have a separate insertable model for this simple data?
Personally I would prefer one model as I guess it will also reduce complexity.
| }; | ||
|
|
||
| if let Err(e) = db::routing_fees::insert( | ||
| NewRoutingFee { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Since the struct NewRoutingFee is only used here, I think you can remove it and pass in the fields directly into this function.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
My timebox for addressing this expired :)
Diesel kept annoying me when I tried to safe the values directly using a tuple. I don't think it's worth investing more time into fighting with Diesel.
I generally think it's OK to use the same pattern for the tables and accept this bit of boilerplate. If you think it's important I'm happy to address it in a follow up.
da-kami
force-pushed
the
feat/matching-fee-tracking
branch
3 times, most recently
from
404dfa1
to
044e726
Compare
da-kami
force-pushed
the
feat/track-routing-fees
branch
from
cf623c3
to
a87dcb5
Compare
da-kami
force-pushed
the
feat/track-routing-fees
branch
from
a87dcb5
to
8844db0
Compare
da-kami
force-pushed
the
feat/track-routing-fees
branch
from
8844db0
to
2246001
Compare
|
bors r+ |
|
Build succeeded! The publicly hosted instance of bors-ng is deprecated and will go away soon. If you want to self-host your own instance, instructions are here. If you want to switch to GitHub's built-in merge queue, visit their help page.
|
fixes https://github.com/get10101/meta/issues/177
Notes: