Use specific database for write operations in multi-DB setup

[Nathan-Cohen]

---

name: Pull request
about: Submit a pull request for this project
assignees: fabiocaccamo

---

Related issue
Database Configuration error in update_tree #123

Checklist before requesting a review

• I have performed a self-review of my code.
• [NA] I have added tests for the proposed changes.
• [NA] I have run the tests and there are not errors.

Summary:

This PR introduces modifications to enhance support for write operations in environments utilizing multiple databases. The modifications ensure that the update_tree and delete_tree methods in the models.py file direct their write operations to the correct database as specified by the database router's db_for_write method.

Changes Made:

1. update_tree Method:

   • The method has been modified to use the database specified for write operations by the database router.
   • The using argument in transaction.atomic() is employed as transaction.atomic(using=router.db_for_write(TreeNodeModel)).

2. delete_tree Method:

   • The method has been similarly modified to ensure correct routing of write operations to the appropriate database.

Rationale:

In projects utilizing multiple databases, it is essential to direct write operations to the appropriate database reliably. The modifications in this PR address this need by explicitly specifying the database for write operations in update_tree and delete_tree methods, contributing to the overall stability and reliability of the package in multi-database environments.

Regarding Testing
Wanted to throw in some tests for these changes, but that would need a bit of a setup overhaul to simulate multiple databases – seemed a bit overkill for this PR.

Did run manual checks to ensure everything’s in order. I believe the changes shouldn’t mess with the library’s flow and should be a plus for those juggling multiple databases.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (dc9e265) 90.42% compared to head (a672eaf) 90.42%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #124   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   90.42%   90.42%           
=======================================
  Files          10       10           
  Lines         658      658           
=======================================
  Hits          595      595           
  Misses         63       63           

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	90.42% <100.00%> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files	Coverage Δ
treenode/models.py	97.88% <100.00%> (ø)

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[fabiocaccamo]

@Nathan-Cohen thank you very much, I will release a patch release as soon as possible.