feat: Add support for adding of relational fields #1766
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
AndrewSisley
added
feature
Will be used by the db package too shortly
AndrewSisley
force-pushed
the
1747-add-relational-field
branch
2 times, most recently
from
e68be5d to
029c741
Compare
Codecov ReportPatch coverage:
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #1766 +/- ##
===========================================
+ Coverage 75.60% 75.80% +0.20%
===========================================
Files 209 209
Lines 21900 22063 +163
===========================================
+ Hits 16557 16724 +167
+ Misses 4192 4189 -3
+ Partials 1151 1150 -1
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
... and 2 files with indirect coverage changes Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.
|
AndrewSisley
force-pushed
the
1747-add-relational-field
branch
from
029c741 to
0372c5a
Compare
shahzadlone
approved these changes
Aug 9, 2023
Cheers :) |
shahzadlone
pushed a commit
to shahzadlone/defradb
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 23, 2024
## Relevant issue(s) Resolves sourcenetwork#1747 ## Description Adds support for adding of relational fields to existing schema. It does not add any syntax magic to make this easy, but it does validate that the provided values are valid (this is pretty much all it does). Any magic that we add to make the UX tolerable will need to respect these rules anyway, so no time lost there. Similar to other aspects of the schema migration work, this also does not seek to tidy up the `client.DescriptionFoo` objects, but it does hope to expose and promote that cleanup in the future. Syntax sugar and `client.DescriptionFoo` cleanup can/will be done later. Some hopefully within this release.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Relevant issue(s)
Resolves #1747
Description
Adds support for adding of relational fields to existing schema.
It does not add any syntax magic to make this easy, but it does validate that the provided values are valid (this is pretty much all it does). Any magic that we add to make the UX tolerable will need to respect these rules anyway, so no time lost there.
Similar to other aspects of the schema migration work, this also does not seek to tidy up the
client.DescriptionFooobjects, but it does hope to expose and promote that cleanup in the future.Syntax sugar and
client.DescriptionFoocleanup can/will be done later. Some hopefully within this release.