added support for sqlalchemy2

[the-vty]

Hi Samuel,

I noticed that the debug stopped working on sqlalchemy 2.0. Here is the PR that solves it for me.

Thanks!

[samuelcolvin]

did you mean to close this?

[the-vty]

I closed this because the tests were broken and I have no idea at the moment how to arrange the tests against the different sqlalchemy versions. Sorry for that.

[samuelcolvin]

Then best to leave the PR open and we can work together to fix tests.

Looks to me like a warning from usage of declarative_base in a test, we can either ignore that warning, or use whatever sqlalchemy recommends instead of declarative_base.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #120 (234b029) into main (8811bfe) will decrease coverage by 0.75%.
The diff coverage is 75.00%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##              main     #120      +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage   100.00%   99.25%   -0.75%     
===========================================
  Files            4        7       +3     
  Lines          279      537     +258     
  Branches        38       75      +37     
===========================================
+ Hits           279      533     +254     
- Misses           0        2       +2     
- Partials         0        2       +2     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
devtools/prettier.py	98.95% <75.00%> (ø)
devtools/utils.py	96.72% <75.00%> (ø)
devtools/__init__.py	100.00% <0.00%> (ø)

---

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 8811bfe...234b029. Read the comment docs.

[the-vty]

I added support for models defined using declarative_base in sqlalchemy 2.0 as well.

[samuelcolvin]

Otherwise LGTM

[samuelcolvin]

I'm happy with the result, but I think there's a more elegant way to do this.

[samuelcolvin]

great, thanks so much.

[the-vty]

Hi Samuel, I think you missed my question about "deferred" fields. Should we display it as "<deferred>" or just skip such fields? Thanks! WBR Victor

…

On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 at 17:23, Samuel Colvin ***@***.***> wrote: great, thanks so much. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#120 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFBRL4C3A7L6QMSK3Y6TT33WWEQONANCNFSM6AAAAAAUNRDV4I> . You are receiving this because you modified the open/close state.Message ID: ***@***.***>