-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 186
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
Conversation
📸 Preview service has generated an image. |
} | ||
|
||
export async function down(): Promise<void> { | ||
// do nothing, we do not care |
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.
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.
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 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.
@@ -84,20 +73,12 @@ export const createObjectFactory = | |||
|
|||
const finalInsertionObject: InsertableSpeckleObject = { | |||
...insertionObject, | |||
totalChildrenCount: closures.length, | |||
totalChildrenCount, |
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.
Are we using totalChildrenCount
or totalChildrenCountByDepth
anywhere?
📸 Preview service has generated an image. |
📸 Preview service has generated an image. |
Description & motivation
Changes:
To-do before merge:
Screenshots:
Validation of changes:
Checklist:
References