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

Fix 0 capacity issue. now cache_size can be 0 #187

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Jan 27, 2018

Conversation

2 participants
@wuarmin
Contributor

wuarmin commented Jan 27, 2018

I encountered a problem while setting cache_size to 0. The result was an unlimited cache because in python "0" evaluates to false. This PR would fix this.

kind regards

@wuarmin

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

wuarmin commented Jan 27, 2018

@msiemens Do you know why the test-build with Python 2.6 failed?

@msiemens

This comment has been minimized.

Owner

msiemens commented Jan 27, 2018

Thanks for the Pull Request! 🙂

@msiemens Do you know why the test-build with Python 2.6 failed?

This is due to #185 where it's still up to debate whether or not to drop Python 2.6 as our test infrastructure has dropped support for it.

@msiemens msiemens merged commit 3fcbd4c into msiemens:master Jan 27, 2018

1 of 2 checks passed

continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build failed
Details
coverage/coveralls Coverage remained the same at 100.0%
Details
@wuarmin

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

wuarmin commented Jan 27, 2018

@msiemens All right. I 'll provide another to provide the option to disable cache explicitly. (We talked about it at #179 )

@wuarmin wuarmin deleted the wuarmin:fixes/fix_capacity_0_issue branch Jan 27, 2018

@msiemens

This comment has been minimized.

Owner

msiemens commented Jan 28, 2018

Actually, I'm just thinking about if the best way to disable the query cache would be to actually use a cache_size of 0 and in this case skip the query cache logic or replace the cache with an class that has the same interface/api but doesn't perform any caching. This may make the API a little less nosiy compared to adding a new argument – if we document this properly. What do you think?

@wuarmin

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

wuarmin commented Jan 29, 2018

@msiemens Yes, I think you are right. Defining a cache_size of zero, fullfills the purpose. Another option is not necessary.

@msiemens

This comment has been minimized.

Owner

msiemens commented Mar 1, 2018

This is now released in v3.8.0 🙂

@wuarmin

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

wuarmin commented Mar 3, 2018

@msiemens
great!
The latest version in python package index is still 3.7.0.
If I want to upgrade I get following message:

CRITICAL:pip.index:Could not find a version that satisfies the requirement tinydb==3.8.0 (from versions: 1.0.0, 1.0.1, 1.1.0, 1.1.1, 1.2.0, 1.3.0, 1.4.0, 2.0.0, 2.0.1, 2.1.0, 2.2.0, 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.3.0b0, 2.3.1, 2.3.1.post1, 2.3.1.post2, 2.3.2, 2.4, 3.0.0, 3.1.0, 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3, 3.2.0, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.3.0, 3.3.1, 3.4.0, 3.4.1, 3.5.0, 3.6.0, 3.7.0)
@msiemens

This comment has been minimized.

Owner

msiemens commented Mar 3, 2018

Whoops! Forgot to publish it on PyPI, sorry! Should work now 🙂

@wuarmin

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

wuarmin commented Mar 3, 2018

thanks! 👍 I'm on 3.8.0 😄

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment