Skip to content

refactor(db): use new store interface #831

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Open
scottmckendry wants to merge 5 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

refactor(db): use new store interface #831

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
ad6751d
refactor(db): use new store interface
scottmckendry Apr 30, 2026
03cebb8
feat(db): add code gen to build sqlc-compatible wrappers
scottmckendry May 3, 2026
36bfcd4
feat(db): add `memory` storage driver
scottmckendry May 3, 2026
68f04ec
refactor(db): cleanup sqlc-wrapper gen
scottmckendry May 7, 2026
e2fd605
test(db): add memory driver tests
scottmckendry May 10, 2026
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
6 changes: 6 additions & 0 deletions .github/workflows/ci.yml
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -26,6 +26,12 @@ jobs:
- name: Go dependencies
run: go mod download

- name: Check codegen is up to date
run: |
go generate ./internal/repository/...
git diff --exit-code -- internal/repository/
git status --porcelain -- internal/repository/ | grep -q . && echo "untracked files in internal/repository/" && exit 1 || true
Comment on lines +29 to +34
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@steveiliop56 steveiliop56 May 11, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should the CI be responsible for this? It doesn't make sense to me to try to generate code in the CI because then why not generate SQLC code too?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

@scottmckendry scottmckendry May 12, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I wanted a way to make sure PRs weren't manually editing generated files.

This is more of test than actually generating the result.

Originally i had planned on having sqlc in here too, but it would mean having a fixed version of the sqlc binary used to generate. otherwise you get false positives on the version comment at the top of the gen'd files.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@steveiliop56 steveiliop56 May 12, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Oh I like this, I misunderstood. Well maybe we should bundle everything into a small script? There is nothing stopping us from adding SQLC to be honest. We can just read the files, get the version and check if anything meaningful has changed with the correct binary version. I wonder, could we make this into an action ; )

- name: Install frontend dependencies
run: |
cd frontend
Expand Down
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion Makefile
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -84,4 +84,4 @@ sql:

# Go gen
generate:
go run ./gen
go generate ./internal/repository/...
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@steveiliop56 steveiliop56 May 11, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Please keep the ./gen too since it generates the .env.example and documentation reference.

Loading
Loading