Datastore Extraction: Create DatastoreError type #2798
Merged
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
Contributor
Author
|
Looks like internal checks passed actually |
Signed-off-by: Tyler Cloutier <cloutiertyler@users.noreply.github.com>
cloutiertyler
force-pushed
the
tyler/datastore-error
branch
from
6fc5b02 to
f4910d6
Compare
Signed-off-by: Tyler Cloutier <cloutiertyler@users.noreply.github.com>
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Description of Changes
This PR splits out a
DatastoreErrortype fromDBError. This is necessary forDatastoreextraction becauseDBErrorreferences a hair mess of things in the relational db and elsewhere. This also gives the datastore a cleaner API with a clearer set of errors that it can produce.NOTE: This is based off of #2795
API and ABI breaking changes
None
Expected complexity level and risk
2, this is in principle a non-functional change, but it's larger so a semantic mistake could be made. Also I can't imagine that this won't also require a private PR.
Testing
None yet. Need to check in on private.