-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 72
Make SQLite KIM default #570
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
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
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
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
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
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
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
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
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
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.
Not related to any of your changes specifically but food for thought around
SQLite
config files.I know we originally made the provider name globally optional so that existing configs would not fail with new versions of Parsec. Would it be better for it to be optional for
OnDisk
KIM implementations (to ensure config stability), and required forSQLite
KIM configs? This way it forces the user to edit the config and set the provider names with their "preferred" naming scheme; preventing the (probably common) case of a user changing from theOnDisk
toSQLite
KIM without reading any of the provider naming warnings (quoted below).In my mind, by going from
OnDisk
->SQLite
the user is "opting-in" to a new feature-set and its requirements. The only concern from the stability requirements set out isNew options should be optional
. I would argue that, transitively, provider name in this case is optional as themanager_type="OnDisk"
would have to be mutated tomanager_type="SQLite"
in order for provider name to become a required field.Parsec Config Stability:
Current provider name warnings:
On the note of these warnings.
WARNING: Provider name cannot change.
would probably read nicer asWARNING: Provider name should not change once set.
. And maybeloss of existing keys
toLOSS OF EXISTING KEYS
to really drive the point home and draw the attention of skim readers.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.
Matt's point here makes me think that maybe our rules around config file stability need some refinement, because I would agree that there are cases where explicitly opting in to a new feature (and hence editing the config file anyway) might prompt the need for other required changes. The current rule of "new options should be optional" is perhaps rather too vague. The real intention here is simply to ensure that existing config files always continue working, but that's not the same as saying that it should be possible to edit one thing without changing anything else.
But then there is the question about what should be done in this specific case - should a switch to the SQL lite provider prompt the addition of names for existing providers? I'm in two minds about this. It might be enough simply to ensure that our out-of-box example config includes provider names. At the moment, a working deployment cannot be "switched" from on-disk to sql anyway, because there is no migration facility being offered as yet. If and when we decide to offer a migration path, we could possibly make it a requirement of that process to inject provider names into the config.
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 have moved this conversation over to #571 !