-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 110
feat: support writing domain metadata (1/2) #1274
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
Conversation
Codecov Report❌ Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #1274 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 84.48% 84.55% +0.06%
==========================================
Files 113 113
Lines 27948 28009 +61
Branches 27948 28009 +61
==========================================
+ Hits 23612 23683 +71
+ Misses 3197 3189 -8
+ Partials 1139 1137 -2 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
quick drive-by review, dropping a few comments
305ddbf
to
713a21c
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Flushing some comments based on a quick skim. I did not look at the new tests.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
gonna definitely have conflicts with #1239, perhaps should just block on that merging. also - can we take on the stuff i mentioned here: #1239 (comment) ?
c7f5f6b
to
7d90c15
Compare
7d90c15
to
f854284
Compare
… behavior change.
7892501
to
c475873
Compare
22b5b3c
to
9c89f0e
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
looks great thanks, just a couple small things
d99ebae
to
6f13346
Compare
3dbc7ab
to
6f13346
Compare
Ok(()) | ||
} | ||
|
||
pub fn assert_result_error_with_message<T, E: ToString>(res: Result<T, E>, message: &str) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Duplicating this method does not feel right to me. Should we rather move it here and import the method from the test_utils dependency in the main crate?
@zachschuermann, what do you think?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
i looked into doing that this pr, but then the PR diff blows up. #1319 shows how the removal is to be done.
- this would make a good starter task (if we want one)
- duplicating a method is bad, but this is a simple test util so it's not a big deal
if we think it is a blocker, then i will open the pr linked above as a real pr and get it in.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm fine with the approach you suggested. I guess Zach has to make the call here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
yea we can just take in follow-up
0609301
to
a0db3e5
Compare
a0db3e5
to
7fc906f
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
lgtm! thanks
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
looks good after we close on a few final things! thanks @MannDP!!
Ok(()) | ||
} | ||
|
||
pub fn assert_result_error_with_message<T, E: ToString>(res: Result<T, E>, message: &str) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
yea we can just take in follow-up
2ba9817
to
ec20fed
Compare
What changes are proposed in this pull request?
This PR is (1/2) to support writing domain metadata.
Writing domain metadata, as per the Delta protocol requires:
domainMetadata
must exist in the table'swriterFeatures
. We satisfy this via an explicit check inTransaction::commit
.delta_log
dir already has a log file with the name this txn was going to write. No new logic needed in this PR.How was this change tested?
Added new integration tests in
write.rs
.