refactor: remove legacy severity flags from SQLBaseError and streamline formatters

[gvozdvmozgu]

No description provided.

[github-actions]

Benchmark for 13fdf73

Click to view benchmark

Test	Base	PR	%
DepthMap::from_parent	38.6±1.10µs	39.4±0.74µs	+2.07%
fix_complex_query	8.7±0.17ms	9.6±0.84ms	+10.34%
fix_superlong	88.3±7.79ms	92.6±7.42ms	+4.87%
parse_complex_query	2.8±0.07µs	2.7±0.08µs	-3.57%
parse_expression_recursion	5.0±0.13µs	5.0±0.08µs	0.00%
parse_simple_query	756.4±19.77ns	772.2±19.84ns	+2.09%

[benfdking]

I am not sure this is the right approach:

1. is the complexity worth it compared to an enum?
2. Some of these properties like whether something is fixable or a warning is orthogonal and so be separate fields?

[gvozdvmozgu]

Hmm, looking at the code now, I think we can just introduce a Severity enum with Fatal and Warning variants (we never actually use IGNORE, so we can drop it). fixable can be a separate bool field, which won’t affect the struct’s size.

[benfdking]

Hmm, looking at the code now, I think we can just introduce a Severity enum with Fatal and Warning variants (we never actually use IGNORE, so we can drop it). fixable can be a separate bool field, which won’t affect the struct’s size.

Sounds great!

[github-actions]

Benchmark for 92b2eb3

Click to view benchmark

Test	Base	PR	%
DepthMap::from_parent	39.7±0.33µs	39.7±0.33µs	0.00%
fix_complex_query	9.2±0.06ms	9.7±0.70ms	+5.43%
fix_superlong	94.3±6.07ms	115.3±10.92ms	+22.27%
parse_complex_query	3.0±0.08µs	2.9±0.04µs	-3.33%
parse_expression_recursion	5.6±0.03µs	5.1±0.11µs	-8.93%
parse_simple_query	858.0±14.87ns	804.3±11.95ns	-6.26%

[github-actions]

Benchmark for b8970b8

Click to view benchmark

Test	Base	PR	%
DepthMap::from_parent	40.1±0.43µs	39.6±0.58µs	-1.25%
fix_complex_query	9.3±0.09ms	9.5±0.51ms	+2.15%
fix_superlong	102.9±6.76ms	105.7±15.47ms	+2.72%
parse_complex_query	2.9±0.03µs	2.8±0.02µs	-3.45%
parse_expression_recursion	5.1±0.13µs	5.1±0.38µs	0.00%
parse_simple_query	792.1±12.15ns	790.0±5.76ns	-0.27%

[github-actions]

Benchmark for 160c713

Click to view benchmark

Test	Base	PR	%
DepthMap::from_parent	39.7±0.36µs	39.7±0.26µs	0.00%
fix_complex_query	9.3±0.10ms	9.8±0.71ms	+5.38%
fix_superlong	96.3±6.57ms	105.1±11.72ms	+9.14%
parse_complex_query	2.9±0.03µs	2.9±0.11µs	0.00%
parse_expression_recursion	5.1±0.18µs	5.1±0.04µs	0.00%
parse_simple_query	811.8±9.73ns	821.9±46.85ns	+1.24%

[github-actions]

Benchmark for 079d5bf

Click to view benchmark

Test	Base	PR	%
DepthMap::from_parent	39.7±0.32µs	39.9±0.37µs	+0.50%
fix_complex_query	9.5±0.27ms	9.6±0.65ms	+1.05%
fix_superlong	102.1±8.21ms	105.8±12.62ms	+3.62%
parse_complex_query	2.9±0.03µs	2.9±0.03µs	0.00%
parse_expression_recursion	5.1±0.05µs	5.1±0.07µs	0.00%
parse_simple_query	835.4±8.69ns	809.0±6.01ns	-3.16%

[github-actions]

Benchmark for 0bccfeb

Click to view benchmark

Test	Base	PR	%
DepthMap::from_parent	40.1±0.42µs	40.6±0.33µs	+1.25%
fix_complex_query	9.5±0.08ms	9.8±0.90ms	+3.16%
fix_superlong	99.8±6.31ms	107.5±14.66ms	+7.72%
parse_complex_query	2.9±0.03µs	2.9±0.02µs	0.00%
parse_expression_recursion	5.1±0.07µs	5.1±0.05µs	0.00%
parse_simple_query	811.5±12.88ns	816.8±6.41ns	+0.65%