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

Table identifier #97

Merged
merged 3 commits into from Nov 2, 2016
Merged

Table identifier #97

merged 3 commits into from Nov 2, 2016

Conversation

@jklukas
Copy link
Collaborator

@jklukas 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
Copy link
Collaborator

@graingert graingert commented Oct 5, 2016

there's something up with your rebase

@jklukas jklukas force-pushed the table-identifier branch from 88813d6 to 9aa9546 Oct 5, 2016
@jklukas
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@jklukas 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
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@jklukas jklukas commented Oct 5, 2016

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

@jklukas jklukas force-pushed the table-identifier branch from 9aa9546 to 33c380c Oct 5, 2016
@jklukas
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@jklukas jklukas commented Oct 5, 2016

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

@graingert
Copy link
Collaborator

@graingert graingert commented Oct 5, 2016

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

@graingert
Copy link
Collaborator

@graingert graingert commented Oct 5, 2016

I recommened removing it and re-applying your rebase

@jklukas jklukas force-pushed the table-identifier branch 2 times, most recently from f16dfba to 5929d27 Oct 5, 2016
@jklukas
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@jklukas jklukas commented Oct 5, 2016

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

@jklukas
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@jklukas 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
Copy link
Collaborator

@graingert graingert commented Oct 5, 2016

Definitely change the changelog

@jklukas jklukas force-pushed the table-identifier branch from 5929d27 to 115de57 Oct 5, 2016
@jklukas
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@jklukas jklukas commented Oct 5, 2016

Added in a line in CHANGES.rst and squashed.

@graingert
Copy link
Collaborator

@graingert 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
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@jklukas 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
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
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.