Skip to content
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

v9.0.1 #166

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Sep 19, 2019
Merged

v9.0.1 #166

merged 1 commit into from
Sep 19, 2019

Conversation

doug-martin
Copy link
Owner

@doug-martin
Copy link
Owner Author

@marshallmcmullen Just an FYI I had to revert the preparing when using IS clauses. I did add tests for checking that null is prepared when using it outside of an IS clause.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Sep 19, 2019

Codecov Report

Merging #166 into master will increase coverage by <.01%.
The diff coverage is 100%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##           master    #166      +/-   ##
=========================================
+ Coverage    93.9%   93.9%   +<.01%     
=========================================
  Files          55      55              
  Lines        3871    3874       +3     
=========================================
+ Hits         3635    3638       +3     
  Misses        217     217              
  Partials       19      19
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
sqlgen/expression_sql_generator.go 100% <100%> (ø) ⬆️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 25020dc...3e93ae2. Read the comment docs.

* [FIXED] Issue where `NULL`, `TRUE` and `FALSE` are interpolated when using an `IS` clause. #165
@marshall-mcmullen
Copy link
Contributor

@marshallmcmullen Just an FYI I had to revert the preparing when using IS clauses. I did add tests for checking that null is prepared when using it outside of an IS clause.

Thanks for the heads up @doug-martin . And thanks for jumping on that fix so fast. I reviewed your changes, and you added a lot of good tests around this change. Thanks!

@doug-martin doug-martin deleted the v9.0.1-rc branch October 16, 2021 21:24
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants