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

Table identifier #97

Merged
merged 3 commits into from Nov 2, 2016

Conversation

Projects
None yet
3 participants
@jklukas
Collaborator

jklukas commented Sep 30, 2016

Todos

  • MIT compatible
  • Tests
  • Documentation
  • Updated CHANGES.rst

This builds on #78 and avoids the trouble of parsing qualified table names by instead introducing a RelationKey namedtuple that tracks those values separately.

Does this look like a good approach?

@graingert

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@graingert

graingert Oct 5, 2016

Collaborator

there's something up with your rebase

Collaborator

graingert commented Oct 5, 2016

there's something up with your rebase

@jklukas

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jklukas

jklukas Oct 5, 2016

Collaborator

I don't know what was up with the rebase. I did some surgery and I think this is correct now.

Collaborator

jklukas commented Oct 5, 2016

I don't know what was up with the rebase. I did some surgery and I think this is correct now.

@jklukas

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jklukas

jklukas Oct 5, 2016

Collaborator

Looks like there's an error in the tests here. Will investigate.

Collaborator

jklukas commented Oct 5, 2016

Looks like there's an error in the tests here. Will investigate.

@jklukas

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jklukas

jklukas Oct 5, 2016

Collaborator

Merged in a change that takes out the now-unnecessary test about splitting schema and table name.

Collaborator

jklukas commented Oct 5, 2016

Merged in a change that takes out the now-unnecessary test about splitting schema and table name.

@graingert

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@graingert

graingert Oct 5, 2016

Collaborator

@jklukas your rebase is still odd, I pushed f1cc229 to unbreak stuff

Collaborator

graingert commented Oct 5, 2016

@jklukas your rebase is still odd, I pushed f1cc229 to unbreak stuff

@graingert

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@graingert

graingert Oct 5, 2016

Collaborator

I recommened removing it and re-applying your rebase

Collaborator

graingert commented Oct 5, 2016

I recommened removing it and re-applying your rebase

@jklukas

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jklukas

jklukas Oct 5, 2016

Collaborator

Pulled in that change and rebased again. Tests are passing this time, so ready for review.

Collaborator

jklukas commented Oct 5, 2016

Pulled in that change and rebased again. Tests are passing this time, so ready for review.

@jklukas

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jklukas

jklukas Oct 5, 2016

Collaborator

@graingert - This is a bug fix, so I don't see the need for any documentation changes. Does this warrant something in the changelog?

Collaborator

jklukas commented Oct 5, 2016

@graingert - This is a bug fix, so I don't see the need for any documentation changes. Does this warrant something in the changelog?

@graingert

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@graingert

graingert Oct 5, 2016

Collaborator

Definitely change the changelog

Collaborator

graingert commented Oct 5, 2016

Definitely change the changelog

@jklukas

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jklukas

jklukas Oct 5, 2016

Collaborator

Added in a line in CHANGES.rst and squashed.

Collaborator

jklukas commented Oct 5, 2016

Added in a line in CHANGES.rst and squashed.

@graingert

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@graingert

graingert Nov 2, 2016

Collaborator

@jklukas is this ready to go?

Collaborator

graingert commented Nov 2, 2016

@jklukas is this ready to go?

@graingert graingert added this to the 0.6.0 milestone Nov 2, 2016

@jklukas

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jklukas

jklukas Nov 2, 2016

Collaborator

Yes, this should be good to merge. Are you +1, @graingert ?

Collaborator

jklukas commented Nov 2, 2016

Yes, this should be good to merge. Are you +1, @graingert ?

@graingert graingert merged commit 131dda9 into master Nov 2, 2016

2 checks passed

continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details
continuous-integration/travis-ci/push The Travis CI build passed
Details

@graingert graingert deleted the table-identifier branch Nov 2, 2016

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