-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 494
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
Use jsonb to avoid problems on batch delete #2267
Use jsonb to avoid problems on batch delete #2267
Conversation
@lukepass do you use MySQL? if so, can you check if this PR breaks your database schema in any way? |
Maybe it is better to just add the jsonb option to not do more hard BC breaks. @VincentLanglet (we have more usages of json fields in SonataPageBundle) |
Should I just go on this branch and launch migrations or make some media upload? |
Yes please, go to this branch and try to launch migrations. Also if you could remove your media table and try to update the schema again, to ensure nothing changes, would be helpful. Thank you :) |
<field name="providerMetadata" column="provider_metadata" type="json" nullable="true"/> | ||
<field name="providerMetadata" column="provider_metadata" type="json" nullable="true"> | ||
<options> | ||
<option name="jsonb">true</option> |
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.
Should we add tests for this?
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 don't think it is really easy to test. The problem with the distinct query is only when you do a batch delete.
I think we might start with testing on different databases instead of trying to reproduce the problem that this PR solves.
Anyway we shouldn't block the PR for its test IMO. I guess if it does not break with Sqlite we are fine.
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 personally don't block the PR for unit/functional test, but for real tests.
I'd like to avoid to release the 4.0 with a major bug for mysql user and then be in the situation where reverting the change introduce a bug for mongo users.
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.
Did not test this, but looks okay so far
IMHO we can release the stable 4.0 release after merging this. The last RC release was in November. |
Yes, I just wait for someone, like lukepass, to test this. |
Yes! Sorry monday I will test it. Thanks!
Il sab 22 gen 2022, 19:06 Vincent Langlet ***@***.***> ha
scritto:
… Yes, I just wait for someone, like lukepass, to test this.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#2267 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABRB2CKRDPBRDSLUXZOYRW3UXLW2RANCNFSM5MNAMBIA>
.
Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS
<https://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1477376905?ct=notification-email&mt=8&pt=524675>
or Android
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.github.android&referrer=utm_campaign%3Dnotification-email%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dgithub>.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
It generated a migration:
I executed it and made some tests, it seems all ok! The schema didn't break and the previous data didn't corrupt. |
Subject
I am targeting this branch, because this is the safe branch to do it.
Changelog