-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 52
Add missing :on
keys to queries with joins
#113
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
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or 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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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.
pretty sure this should just be
on: p.id == c.post_id
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.
When I changed it, the test failed:
I avoided changing things in test cases to keep it focused on eliminating the warnings. If we should visit these tests, we better do it in another PR (we'll probably touch some other things too).
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 like we should fix the tests here too. I don't see why we can't fix them here as well.
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 test file has 2.4K lines of code, with multiple modules defined inline and lots of functions defined directly in the test module. I'm not familiar enough with the
Ecto.Adapters.SQL.Connection
behaviour just yet, so I can't step up to do any refactoring for now, that's why I kept the PR focused on cleaning up the warnings only.I've been diving into the Ecto documentation to be able to actively contribute to ecto_sqlite3 since last week. I expect to be able to contribute at a higher level soon.
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.
@joeljuca I'm thinking we should just fix the tests now and those warnings are good indicators of the places we should alter them. When I get some time, I'll either copy your changes or just push into this branch with the SQL updates. It's a good thing to clean up as we go.
Originally I just copied a lot of tests from other adapters and threw together frankenstien tests from all of them to give this library a fighting chance 😄
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.
Oh, got it. So we leave it as it is for now? What should we do with this PR? Leave it hanging till we're able to refactor these tests, or we just close it and move on?
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.
Leave this open. I can attack this and use the changes you made to hunt down and improve the tests.