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

refactor: introduce tuple abstraction (rebased) #1701

Merged
merged 4 commits into from Feb 10, 2020

Conversation

@paplorinc
Copy link
Contributor

paplorinc commented Feb 10, 2020

All Submissions:

This PR fixes the conflicts of #954:

This replaces the use of byte[][] in a number of places with a Tuple class that wraps it.
This is a necessary change to support doing anything other than blindly reading incoming data into a heap-allocated byte array.

The intended use-case is the flip side of #953. The actual functionality will follow in a subsequent PR if there's support for the refactor and feature.


  • Have you followed the guidelines in our Contributing document?
  • Have you checked to ensure there aren't other open Pull Requests for the same update/change?

New Feature Submissions:

  1. Does your submission pass tests?
  2. Does mvn checkstyle:check pass ?
  3. Have you added your new test classes to an existing test suite in alphabetical order?

Changes to Existing Features:

  • Does this break existing behaviour? If so please explain.
  • Have you added an explanation of what your changes do and why you'd like us to include them?
  • Have you written new tests for your core changes, as applicable?
  • Have you successfully run tests with your changes locally?
tomdcc and others added 3 commits Sep 21, 2017
This replaces the use of byte[][] in a number of places with a Tuple
class that wraps it. This is a necessary change to support doing
anything other than blindly reading incoming data into a heap-
allocated byte array.
* origin/master: (427 commits)
  refactor: make PSQLState enum consts for integrity constraint violations (#1699)
  [maven-release-plugin] prepare for next development iteration
  [maven-release-plugin] prepare release REL42.2.10
  pass gpg key through arguments
  add passphrase to release mvn task
  chore: update signing key
  Metadata queries improvment (#1694)
  WIP release notes for 42.2.10 (#1688)
  chore(deps): bump checkstyle from 8.28 to 8.29 in /pgjdbc (#1691)
  Cleanup PGProperty, sort values, and add some missing to docs (#1686)
  fix: Fixes issue #1592 where one thread is reading the copy and another thread closes the connection (#1594)
  Fixing LocalTime rounding (losing precision) (#1570)
  sync error message value with tested value (#1664)
  add DatabaseMetaDataCacheTest to test suite to run it (#1685)
  Fix Network Performance of PgDatabaseMetaData.getTypeInfo() method (#1668)
  fix: Issue #1680 updating a boolean field requires special handling to set it to t or f instead of true or false (#1682)
  fix testSetNetworkTimeoutEnforcement test failure (#1681)
  minor: fix checkstyle violation of unused import (#1683)
  fix: #1677 NumberFormatException when fetching PGInterval with small value (#1678)
  fix: actually use milliseconds instead of microseconds for timeouts (#1653)
  ...
Copy link
Member

davecramer left a comment

In which case use 2020

@paplorinc

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

paplorinc commented Feb 10, 2020

@paplorinc paplorinc requested a review from davecramer Feb 10, 2020
@davecramer davecramer merged commit ed09fd1 into pgjdbc:master Feb 10, 2020
3 checks passed
3 checks passed
codecov/project 69.12% (+3.64%) compared to cc31c13
Details
continuous-integration/appveyor/pr AppVeyor build succeeded
Details
continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details
@paplorinc paplorinc deleted the paplorinc:tuple-class branch Feb 10, 2020
@paplorinc

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

paplorinc commented Feb 10, 2020

Thanks for your quick review, @davecramer!

@paplorinc

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

paplorinc commented Feb 10, 2020

Can you please close #954 as well?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Linked issues

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.