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

Implement Table.union for Database backend #6204

Merged
merged 28 commits into from
Apr 6, 2023

Conversation

radeusgd
Copy link
Member

@radeusgd radeusgd commented Apr 5, 2023

Pull Request Description

Closes #5235

Important Notes

Checklist

Please ensure that the following checklist has been satisfied before submitting the PR:

  • The documentation has been updated, if necessary.
  • Screenshots/screencasts have been attached, if there are any visual changes. For interactive or animated visual changes, a screencast is preferred.
  • All code follows the
    Scala,
    Java,
    and
    Rust
    style guides. In case you are using a language not listed above, follow the Rust style guide.
  • All code has been tested:
    • Unit tests have been written where possible.
    • If GUI codebase was changed, the GUI was tested when built using ./run ide build.

@radeusgd radeusgd requested a review from jdunkerley as a code owner April 5, 2023 00:51
@radeusgd radeusgd self-assigned this Apr 5, 2023
@radeusgd radeusgd requested a review from GregoryTravis April 5, 2023 09:42
@radeusgd radeusgd force-pushed the wip/radeusgd/union-in-database-5235 branch from ed1e5e7 to 9d882a3 Compare April 5, 2023 12:09
Copy link
Member

@jdunkerley jdunkerley left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Generally looks good to me. A couple of minor checks.

@@ -13,6 +13,7 @@ import Standard.Table.Data.Expression.Expression
import Standard.Table.Data.Expression.Expression_Error
import Standard.Table.Data.Join_Condition.Join_Condition
import Standard.Table.Data.Join_Kind.Join_Kind
import Standard.Table.Data.Match_Columns as Match_Columns_Helpers
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why aliased?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Because we import Match_Columns type just a few lines above.
And we need to distinguish the type from the module.

I'd like to keep the helpers static on the module to keep them more hidden - if they are on the type they are easier to use by users which they are not intended for that.

@radeusgd radeusgd force-pushed the wip/radeusgd/union-in-database-5235 branch from 0adc787 to d8307e4 Compare April 5, 2023 23:31
@radeusgd radeusgd added the CI: Ready to merge This PR is eligible for automatic merge label Apr 5, 2023
@mergify mergify bot merged commit 83b10a2 into develop Apr 6, 2023
@mergify mergify bot deleted the wip/radeusgd/union-in-database-5235 branch April 6, 2023 08:40
Procrat added a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 6, 2023
* develop:
  Project Sharing (#6077)
  Adjust `{Table|Column}.parse` to use `Value_Type` (#6213)
  Add cloud endpoints for frontend (#6002)
  Implement `Table.union` for Database backend (#6204)
  Batch insert suggestions (#6189)
  Formatter fix to not fail when encountering an invalid symlink. (#6172)
  Suspended atom fields are evaluated only once (#6151)
  Text.to_display_text is (shortened) identity (#6174)
  Engine benchmark visualization tool can compare two bench runs (#6198)
  Add PRIVATE so function hidden from Component Browser and other tidying... (#6207)
  Hotfix for #6203. (#6210)
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
CI: Ready to merge This PR is eligible for automatic merge
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Add Table.union to the Database Table.
3 participants