Drop the in-memory database #613
Draft
Conversation
This file contains 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
crodas
force-pushed
the
feature/in-memory-db-sqlite
branch
from
9f714c6 to
e7c3161
Compare
Fixes cashubtc#607 This PR drops the implementation of in-memory database traits. They are useful for testing purposes since the tests should test our codebase and assume the database works as expected (although a follow-up PR should write a sanity test suite for all database trait implementors). As complexity is worth with database requirements to simplify complexity and add more robustness, for instance, with the following plans to add support for transactions or buffered writes, it would become more complex and time-consuming to support a correct database trait. This PR drops the implementation and replaces it with a SQLite memory instance
crodas
force-pushed
the
feature/in-memory-db-sqlite
branch
from
e7c3161 to
1930988
Compare
| @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ rand = "0.8.5" | |||
| bip39 = { version = "2.0", features = ["rand"] } | |||
| anyhow = "1" | |||
| cashu = { path = "../cashu", features = ["mint", "wallet"] } | |||
| cdk = { path = "../cdk", features = ["mint", "wallet"] } | |||
| cdk = { path = "../cdk", features = ["mint", "wallet", "memory_database"] } | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do you think it makes sense to add a memory db feature? Or should we just keep it as you have to bring in one of the cdk-sqlite or redb crates. And whether the sqlite is in mem or not can be handled by that crate. The feature maybe is a little similar for the end user but it creates two para dimes to accomplish the same thing one enabling the feature one bringing in the create.
Related: #511
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This PR has already undergone several iterations, but in its final version, which has just two functions per DB implementation, I believe that moving those functions from cdk to the SQLite crate makes sense.
Regarding #511, that does make sense.
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
Fixes #607
This PR drops the implementation of in-memory database traits.
They are useful for testing purposes since the tests should test our codebase and assume the database works as expected (although a follow-up PR should write a sanity test suite for all database trait implementors).
As complexity is worth with database requirements to simplify complexity and add more robustness, for instance, with the following plans to add support for transactions or buffered writes, it would become more complex and time-consuming to support a correct database trait. This PR drops the implementation and replaces it with a SQLite memory instance
Notes to the reviewers
Suggested CHANGELOG Updates
CHANGED
ADDED
REMOVED
FIXED
Checklist
just final-checkbefore committing