Skip to content
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

feat(core): drop the closure table pls #3900

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Conversation

gjedlicska
Copy link
Contributor

Description & motivation

Changes:

To-do before merge:

Screenshots:

Validation of changes:

Checklist:

  • My pull request follows the guidelines in the Contributing guide?
  • My pull request does not duplicate any other open Pull Requests for the same update/change?
  • My commits are related to the pull request and do not amend unrelated code or documentation.
  • My code follows a similar style to existing code.
  • I have added appropriate tests.
  • I have updated or added relevant documentation.

References

Copy link
Contributor

📸 Preview service has generated an image.

db: projectDb
})
})
: createObjectsBatchedFactory({
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This seems to be the only location that createObjectsBatchedFactory is referenced; can we also remove it in this PR?

@@ -726,10 +726,6 @@ Generate the environment variables for Speckle server and Speckle objects deploy
value: {{ .Values.server.asyncRequestContextEnabled | quote }}
{{- end}}

# *** No more closures flag - prevents writing to the closure table ***
- name: FF_NO_CLOSURE_WRITES
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

noClosureWrites should also be removed from the values.yaml file

}

export async function down(): Promise<void> {
// do nothing, we do not care
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

For self-hosters with the flag disabled, we may want to create the empty table again otherwise a reversion is going to cause their code to break entirely.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

i took a look at the migration back, its very complex with a streamId unique setup, I am fine not supporting this down migration. We've been runnign with no closure writes on app for a couple of months now, this should be fine for self hosters.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants