Use Diesels MultiConnections Derive #3796
Conversation
BlackDex
force-pushed
the
diesel-multiconnect
branch
5 times, most recently
from
467af69 to
4780749
Compare
BlackDex
force-pushed
the
diesel-multiconnect
branch
from
4780749 to
2d09eba
Compare
BlackDex
force-pushed
the
diesel-multiconnect
branch
from
2d09eba to
2c99858
Compare
BlackDex
force-pushed
the
diesel-multiconnect
branch
from
2c99858 to
a35b68a
Compare
With this PR we remove allmost all custom macro's to create the multiple database type code. This is now handled by Diesel it self. This removed the need of the following functions/macro's: - `db_object!` - `::to_db` - `.from_db()` All `conn` variables do not need a `mut` anymore (says nightly rust) It is also possible to just use one schema instead of multiple per type.
BlackDex
force-pushed
the
diesel-multiconnect
branch
from
a35b68a to
1b1596c
Compare
|
Is there anything from the diesel side of things I can to do move this forward? |
Not really, but thanks for asking. We don't want to break a pending PR for SSO for example, since this is a huge change. I do think that is the only one btw. |
|
Also, during this i encountered a few naming-scheme errors, which i probably need to fix too. |
|
This is great! I'm in the process of adding non-diesel database backends (key-value stores like RocksDB for single-node setup and FoundationDB for clusters). This will make my life much easy. Is there anything I can help (on the coding side) to get this merged? |
Not really a.t.m. we were waiting for some other PR's to be merged to prevent big changes for those PR's. Mainly the SSO one. |
With this PR we remove almost all custom macro's to create the multiple database type code. This is now handled by Diesel it self.
This removed the need of the following functions/macro's:
db_object!::to_db.from_db()It is also possible to just use one schema instead of multiple per type.
NOTE: There are just few items which cause some issues with models and schemas having the exact same name, and that causes some ambiguity. I have solved that currently by adding
schema::in-front of those specific items. But it would be nicer if we didn't need that though.Not sure what the best way is to address this. Probably renaming the tables is the best option i think.
I still want to do some testing with the different database types with an empty database, an existing database which needs migrations etc.. etc..
Also, we probably want to wait until Diesel releases v2.1.1, since there are currently some bugs and missing features which got fixed, but not yet merged.
And if someone else wants to help test, please do!, The more the better.