-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13
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
Update notes.org #90
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Update notes.org #90
Conversation
+ incremental save | ||
+ Many backreferences | ||
+ Column renames in migrations | ||
+ Column renames in migrations [[https://github.com/Electron100/butane/issues/89]] | ||
+ prepared/reusable queries | ||
+ Improved custom support, including raw sql where clauses | ||
+ More precise spans in macro errors for invalid field names |
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.
These are likely a few easy improvements. Do we know some instances that need improvement?
+ incremental save | ||
+ Many backreferences | ||
+ Column renames in migrations | ||
+ Column renames in migrations [[https://github.com/Electron100/butane/issues/89]] | ||
+ prepared/reusable queries | ||
+ Improved custom support, including raw sql where clauses | ||
+ More precise spans in macro errors for invalid field names | ||
+ Remove timestamp from migration names |
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 quite like the timestamp being in the name, but it is problematic when git
rebasing a change. I can write up an issue about this, but I probably wont be able to fully capture the original intent of this item.
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.
+ incremental save | ||
+ Many backreferences | ||
+ Column renames in migrations | ||
+ Column renames in migrations [[https://github.com/Electron100/butane/issues/89]] | ||
+ prepared/reusable queries | ||
+ Improved custom support, including raw sql where clauses |
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.
"raw sql where clauses" is a reasonable clear enhancement. Im not sure what else falls under "Improved custom support"
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.
This is probably best covered by issue #1 now
+ incremental save | ||
+ Many backreferences | ||
+ Column renames in migrations | ||
+ Column renames in migrations [[https://github.com/Electron100/butane/issues/89]] | ||
+ prepared/reusable queries |
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.
IMO this isnt a limitation - there are some performance gains here, but ... I doubt typical users of butane
would see this as a priority.
* Roadmap | ||
** vNext | ||
+ foreign key constraints in db, cascade setting | ||
+ foreign key constraints in db, cascade setting [[https://github.com/Electron100/butane/issues/21]] | ||
+ incremental save |
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.
This one isnt clear to me.
does this mean doing writes immediately when changing a struct instance? sounds crazy.
or Many.add
writing immediately?
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.
The original intention of this line was save
being able to do an update with only the fields that have actually changed, as a performance enhancement. However that really doesn't fit well with the current architecture of assigning directly to struct fields and I'm not sure I think it's a good idea any more. I think at this point I'd do something like DataResult
(or like what Diesel does) to allow updates with a struct containing only a subset of the model fields.
* Roadmap | ||
** vNext | ||
+ foreign key constraints in db, cascade setting | ||
+ foreign key constraints in db, cascade setting [[https://github.com/Electron100/butane/issues/21]] | ||
+ incremental save | ||
+ Many backreferences |
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 guess this is simply a function to take the caller from a Many
instance to the instance that "(owner table, key)" points to?
Seems so, and seems not too hard to do, and also quite useful.
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.
Correct
No description provided.