Config migration table name #12
Closed
Conversation
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
…o inline Later on, it'll be easier to swap in the custom migrations table name
Much of the code assumes the index of the script in the file system matches the index of the script entry in the database. If we don't keep a 0th index file, that assumption is no longer true.
|
Hhmm, thinking more about this this might cause issues. The problem (I think) is that if anyone uses this new functionality but has already run an existing migration, the first entry in the We could always bypass a hash check for the 0th file, since that one is part of this codebase and we know it's ok that it changed. |
Closed
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
I took a swing at this, appears to be working well. I kept the 0.sql file because there are a lot of assumptions in the code that the file name index will match the index of that file's entry in the
migrationstable, and without that 1.sql would be in the 0th index, for example. It feels slightly hacky, but I think it prevents the code from getting unnecessarily complex enough that it's worth the tradeoff.Closes #4