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

fix custom meta DB remover #4642

Merged
merged 11 commits into from Oct 31, 2022
Merged

Conversation

bogdan-rosianu
Copy link
Contributor

@bogdan-rosianu bogdan-rosianu commented Oct 25, 2022

Reasoning behind the pull request

Proposed changes

  • use the factory for custom db remover

Testing procedure

Pre-requisites

Based on the Contributing Guidelines the PR author and the reviewers must check the following requirements are met:

  • was the PR targeted to the correct branch?
  • if this is a larger feature that probably needs more than one PR, is there a feat branch created?
  • if this is a feat branch merging, do all satellite projects have a proper tag inside go.mod?

andreibancioiu
andreibancioiu previously approved these changes Oct 25, 2022
@@ -301,6 +300,9 @@ func (psf *StorageServiceFactory) CreateForShard() (dataRetriever.StorageService
return store, err
}

// TODO: split in 2 components shardStorageServiceCreator and metStorageServiceCreator that have a base which will contain the
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

typo: metStorageServiceCreator

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I've expected the proper refactor work

@@ -301,6 +300,9 @@ func (psf *StorageServiceFactory) CreateForShard() (dataRetriever.StorageService
return store, err
}

// TODO: split in 2 components shardStorageServiceCreator and metStorageServiceCreator that have a base which will contain the
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I've expected the proper refactor work

iulianpascalau
iulianpascalau previously approved these changes Oct 27, 2022
Copy link
Contributor

@iulianpascalau iulianpascalau left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Green just to unlock this PR since I've pushed in the branch

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented Oct 27, 2022

Codecov Report

❗ No coverage uploaded for pull request base (rc/v1.4.0@b01c0d6). Click here to learn what that means.
Patch has no changes to coverable lines.

Additional details and impacted files
@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##             rc/v1.4.0    #4642   +/-   ##
============================================
  Coverage             ?   70.83%           
============================================
  Files                ?      630           
  Lines                ?    83248           
  Branches             ?        0           
============================================
  Hits                 ?    58972           
  Misses               ?    19864           
  Partials             ?     4412           

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

☔ View full report at Codecov.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

Copy link
Collaborator

@gabi-vuls gabi-vuls left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

System test passed.

@iulianpascalau iulianpascalau self-assigned this Oct 31, 2022
@bogdan-rosianu bogdan-rosianu merged commit 25a1cb0 into rc/v1.4.0 Oct 31, 2022
@bogdan-rosianu bogdan-rosianu deleted the fix-meta-custom-db-remover branch October 31, 2022 11:05
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

6 participants