Fix 552 export dbpath #554
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
…he export_tree_sqla function, and replaced with QueryBuilder. This means that the import-export can be in principle backend-agnostic. Took the opportunity for some extra comments and cleaning the code a bit
…ango (get_all_parents_dj), that is called by the export_tree_dj function. That means that the DbPath table is no longer used by the export, and all queries are recursive.
szoupanos
approved these changes
Jun 8, 2017
giovannipizzi
approved these changes
Jun 9, 2017
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
With this pull request, we can resolve #552 . The DbPath dependence of the export has been removed either by the QueryBuilder's recursive query for the transitive closure when using SQLAlchemy, or by a small recursive function written explicitly for the Django backend.
As mentioned in 02a4c73 the import-export can be from now on in principle backend-agnostic, given that all the functionality is given. I suggest putting this work as a separate issue for @szoupanos , and - if everything is in order - merging that request since #522 is critically blocking for #258 .