feat: [#280] Implement Create and DropIfExists methods of Schema #646
Conversation
WalkthroughThe changes introduce a comprehensive update to the database migration framework, including the addition of several new interfaces and methods for managing database schemas, column definitions, and migration operations. Key components include the Changes
Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant User
participant ServiceProvider
participant Schema
participant Blueprint
participant Repository
User->>ServiceProvider: Request Schema
ServiceProvider->>Blueprint: Create New Blueprint
ServiceProvider->>Schema: Initialize Schema with Blueprint
Schema->>Repository: Manage Migration Operations
Repository->>Schema: Execute Migration Commands
Recent review detailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI Files selected for processing (1)
Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #646 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 70.08% 70.33% +0.25%
==========================================
Files 184 189 +5
Lines 11357 11645 +288
==========================================
+ Hits 7959 8190 +231
- Misses 2811 2865 +54
- Partials 587 590 +3 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Action: Define various fields, eg: ID, String, Date, they will be used in a migration file.
database/migration/column.go
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Action: A field has various attributes, eg: autoIncrement, comment, length, etc. Define them here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Action: Different DB drivers have different SQL grammar, they can defined here, and each driver has a single file.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The facades.Schema will be called in a migration file:
// Up Run the migrations.
func (r *M20240915060148CreateUsersTable) Up() {
facades.Schema().Create("users", func(table migration.Blueprint) {
table.ID("id")
table.String("migration")
table.Integer("batch")
})
}
// Down Reverse the migrations.
func (r *M20240915060148CreateUsersTable) Down() {
facades.Schema().DropIfExists("users")
}
![github-actions[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/15368?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
⚠️ Performance Alert ⚠️
Possible performance regression was detected for benchmark.
Benchmark result of this commit is worse than the previous benchmark result exceeding threshold 1.50.
| Benchmark suite | Current: 1e9c15c | Previous: 7097e40 | Ratio |
|---|---|---|---|
BenchmarkFile_ReadWrite |
357259 ns/op 1800 B/op 21 allocs/op |
206498 ns/op 1800 B/op 21 allocs/op |
1.73 |
BenchmarkFile_ReadWrite - ns/op |
357259 ns/op |
206498 ns/op |
1.73 |
This comment was automatically generated by workflow using github-action-benchmark.
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 24
Outside diff range and nitpick comments (31)
contracts/database/migration/migrator.go (5)
4-4: Reminder: Implement theRunmethod.The
Runmethod is commented out. Please ensure to implement this method to run the migrations.Do you want me to open a GitHub issue to track this task?
5-5: Reminder: Implement theRunUpmethod.The
RunUpmethod is commented out. Please ensure to implement this method to run the up migrations.Do you want me to open a GitHub issue to track this task?
6-6: Reminder: Implement theRunDownmethod.The
RunDownmethod is commented out. Please ensure to implement this method to run the down migrations.Do you want me to open a GitHub issue to track this task?
7-7: Reminder: Implement theRollbackmethod.The
Rollbackmethod is commented out. Please ensure to implement this method to rollback the migrations.Do you want me to open a GitHub issue to track this task?
8-8: Reminder: Implement theResetmethod.The
Resetmethod is commented out. Please ensure to implement this method to reset the migrations.Do you want me to open a GitHub issue to track this task?
contracts/database/migration/repository.go (7)
10-11: Consider adding a return value to the method signature.The method is intended to get the last migration batch. Consider adding a return value to the method signature to return the last migration batch information.
-GetLast() +GetLast() (lastBatch interface{})
12-13: Consider adding a return value to the method signature.The method is intended to get the completed migrations with their batch numbers. Consider adding a return value to the method signature to return the completed migrations with their batch numbers.
-GetMigrationBatches() +GetMigrationBatches() (batches interface{})
14-15: Consider adding a return value and clarifying the purpose of thestepsparameter.The method is intended to get the list of migrations. Consider adding a return value to the method signature to return the list of migrations.
-GetMigrations(steps int) +GetMigrations(steps int) (migrations interface{})Also, consider clarifying the purpose of the
stepsparameter in the method comment. It's not clear how thestepsparameter is used to get the list of migrations.
16-17: Consider adding a return value to the method signature.The method is intended to get the list of the migrations by batch. Consider adding a return value to the method signature to return the list of migrations for the specified batch.
-GetMigrationsByBatch(batch int) +GetMigrationsByBatch(batch int) (migrations interface{})
18-19: Consider adding a return value to the method signature.The method is intended to get the next migration batch number. Consider adding a return value to the method signature to return the next migration batch number.
-GetNextBatchNumber() +GetNextBatchNumber() (nextBatchNumber int)
20-21: Consider adding a return value to the method signature.The method is intended to get the completed migrations. Consider adding a return value to the method signature to return the completed migrations.
-GetRan() +GetRan() (completedMigrations interface{})
24-25: Consider adding a return value to the method signature.The method is intended to determine if the migration repository exists. Consider adding a return value to the method signature to return a boolean value indicating whether the migration repository exists or not.
-RepositoryExists() +RepositoryExists() (exists bool)contracts/database/migration/schema.go (1)
29-42: TheCommandstruct is a great addition to enhance the schema's capabilities!The struct provides a structured way to represent various attributes of database commands, which can be beneficial for managing complex schema operations.
Consider creating separate structs for different command types (e.g.,
CreateCommand,DropCommand) to improve code organization and maintainability as the schema functionality grows.database/migration/respository.go (11)
22-25: Reminder: Implement theCreateRepositorymethod.The
CreateRepositorymethod is currently a TODO and will panic if called. Please ensure to implement this method before merging the PR.Do you want me to open a GitHub issue to track this task?
27-30: Reminder: Implement theDeletemethod.The
Deletemethod is currently a TODO and will panic if called. Please ensure to implement this method before merging the PR.Do you want me to open a GitHub issue to track this task?
32-35: Reminder: Implement theDeleteRepositorymethod.The
DeleteRepositorymethod is currently a TODO and will panic if called. Please ensure to implement this method before merging the PR.Do you want me to open a GitHub issue to track this task?
37-40: Reminder: Implement theGetLastmethod.The
GetLastmethod is currently a TODO and will panic if called. Please ensure to implement this method before merging the PR.Do you want me to open a GitHub issue to track this task?
42-45: Reminder: Implement theGetMigrationBatchesmethod.The
GetMigrationBatchesmethod is currently a TODO and will panic if called. Please ensure to implement this method before merging the PR.Do you want me to open a GitHub issue to track this task?
47-50: Reminder: Implement theGetMigrationsmethod.The
GetMigrationsmethod is currently a TODO and will panic if called. Please ensure to implement this method before merging the PR.Do you want me to open a GitHub issue to track this task?
52-55: Reminder: Implement theGetMigrationsByBatchmethod.The
GetMigrationsByBatchmethod is currently a TODO and will panic if called. Please ensure to implement this method before merging the PR.Do you want me to open a GitHub issue to track this task?
57-60: Reminder: Implement theGetNextBatchNumbermethod.The
GetNextBatchNumbermethod is currently a TODO and will panic if called. Please ensure to implement this method before merging the PR.Do you want me to open a GitHub issue to track this task?
62-65: Reminder: Implement theGetRanmethod.The
GetRanmethod is currently a TODO and will panic if called. Please ensure to implement this method before merging the PR.Do you want me to open a GitHub issue to track this task?
67-70: Reminder: Implement theLogmethod.The
Logmethod is currently a TODO and will panic if called. Please ensure to implement this method before merging the PR.Do you want me to open a GitHub issue to track this task?
72-75: Reminder: Implement theRepositoryExistsmethod.The
RepositoryExistsmethod is currently a TODO and will panic if called. Please ensure to implement this method before merging the PR.Do you want me to open a GitHub issue to track this task?
database/migration/schema_test.go (3)
55-57: Consider removing the emptySetupTestmethod if not needed.The
SetupTestmethod is currently empty. If there are no setup actions required before each test, you can remove this method to keep the code clean and concise.
68-68: Reminder: Implement the test for schema validity whenHasTableis available.There's a TODO comment indicating that you plan to test the new schema's validity once
HasTableis implemented. Please ensure that this test is added in the future to verify schema correctness.Would you like me to open a GitHub issue to track this task?
87-90: Reminder: Uncomment and complete tests whenHasTableis implemented.The code for testing
HasTablefunctionality is currently commented out. Once theHasTablemethod is implemented, please uncomment and complete these tests to ensure that theDropIfExistsandCreatemethods are functioning correctly.Would you like me to open a GitHub issue to track this task?
database/migration/blueprint.go (1)
97-97: Implement schema support for Postgres inGetTableName.The TODO comment indicates that schema support for Postgres needs to be added in the
GetTableNamemethod. This is important for correctly handling table names with schemas in Postgres databases.Would you like assistance in implementing this feature? I can provide code suggestions or open a GitHub issue to track this task.
database/migration/grammars/postgres_test.go (1)
76-116: Explicitly Set Expected SQL in Test CasesIn the
TestModifyDefaulttest cases, some entries do not explicitly set theexpectSqlfield when the expected SQL is an empty string. For clarity and consistency, it's advisable to explicitly setexpectSqlto""in these cases.Applying this change improves readability and makes it clear that an empty string is the intentional expected outcome. Here's how you can adjust the test cases:
// Existing test cases { name: "with change and AutoIncrement", setup: func() { mockColumn.EXPECT().GetChange().Return(true).Once() mockColumn.EXPECT().GetAutoIncrement().Return(true).Once() }, + expectSql: "", }, { name: "without change and default is nil", setup: func() { mockColumn.EXPECT().GetChange().Return(false).Once() mockColumn.EXPECT().GetDefault().Return(nil).Once() }, + expectSql: "", },This makes the expected outcome explicit and maintains consistency across all test cases.
database/migration/buleprint_test.go (2)
275-276: SimplifyHasCommandmethod usageThe
s.blueprint.HasCommand(commandCreate)check can be simplified by directly using thecommandCreateconstant without quotes.Apply this diff to simplify:
- s.blueprint.HasCommand("create") + s.blueprint.HasCommand(commandCreate)
213-213: Avoid reusing variable names across testsThe variable
nameis being reused across different tests, which might lead to confusion. Consider renaming variables to reflect their context.For example, in
TestBigInteger:- name := "name" + columnName := "big_integer_column"
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files ignored due to path filters (9)
mocks/database/migration/Blueprint.gois excluded by!mocks/**mocks/database/migration/ColumnDefinition.gois excluded by!mocks/**mocks/database/migration/Grammar.gois excluded by!mocks/**mocks/database/migration/Migrator.gois excluded by!mocks/**mocks/database/migration/Repository.gois excluded by!mocks/**mocks/database/migration/Schema.gois excluded by!mocks/**mocks/database/schema/Blueprint.gois excluded by!mocks/**mocks/database/schema/Migration.gois excluded by!mocks/**mocks/database/schema/Schema.gois excluded by!mocks/**
Files selected for processing (18)
- contracts/database/migration/blueprint.go (1 hunks)
- contracts/database/migration/column.go (1 hunks)
- contracts/database/migration/grammar.go (1 hunks)
- contracts/database/migration/migrator.go (1 hunks)
- contracts/database/migration/repository.go (1 hunks)
- contracts/database/migration/schema.go (2 hunks)
- database/migration/blueprint.go (1 hunks)
- database/migration/buleprint_test.go (1 hunks)
- database/migration/column.go (1 hunks)
- database/migration/column_test.go (1 hunks)
- database/migration/grammars/postgres.go (1 hunks)
- database/migration/grammars/postgres_test.go (1 hunks)
- database/migration/grammars/utils.go (1 hunks)
- database/migration/grammars/utils_test.go (1 hunks)
- database/migration/respository.go (1 hunks)
- database/migration/schema.go (1 hunks)
- database/migration/schema_test.go (1 hunks)
- database/service_provider.go (1 hunks)
Additional comments not posted (47)
contracts/database/migration/column.go (1)
1-22: LGTM!The
ColumnDefinitioninterface is well-defined and provides a comprehensive set of methods to define and inspect a database column. The methods follow a consistent naming convention and have clear purposes.This interface will provide a clean and extensible way to define columns in the database migration framework.
contracts/database/migration/grammar.go (1)
7-22: LGTM!The
Grammarinterface provides a comprehensive contract for implementing database-specific SQL compilation logic for migration operations. The methods cover essential functionality such as creating and dropping tables, retrieving schema building commands and modifiers, and defining column types.The interface allows for a clean separation of concerns and enables support for multiple database engines, making the migration system more flexible and extensible.
contracts/database/migration/repository.go (4)
4-5: LGTM!The method signature and comment are clear about the purpose of creating the migration repository data store.
6-7: LGTM!The method signature and comment are clear about the purpose of removing a migration from the log. The
migrationparameter of typestringis appropriate for identifying the migration to be deleted.
8-9: LGTM!The method signature and comment are clear about the purpose of deleting the migration repository data store.
22-23: LGTM!The method signature and comment are clear about the purpose of logging that a migration was run. The
fileandbatchparameters of typestringare appropriate for identifying the migration file and batch number.contracts/database/migration/schema.go (2)
5-5: LGTM!The method signature and comment changes are minor improvements and do not affect the functionality.
9-9: LGTM!The method signature and comment changes are minor improvements and do not affect the functionality.
contracts/database/migration/blueprint.go (11)
8-9: LGTM!The
Buildmethod signature is well-defined and follows Go conventions. It is appropriately placed within theBlueprintinterface and takes the necessary parameters to execute the blueprint. Returning anerroris a good practice for handling potential failures.
10-11: LGTM!The
Createmethod signature is well-defined and follows Go conventions. It is appropriately placed within theBlueprintinterface and does not take any parameters or return any value, which is suitable for indicating table creation.
12-13: LGTM!The
DropIfExistsmethod signature is well-defined and follows Go conventions. It is appropriately placed within theBlueprintinterface and does not take any parameters or return any value, which is suitable for indicating table dropping.
14-15: LGTM!The
GetAddedColumnsmethod signature is well-defined and follows Go conventions. It is appropriately placed within theBlueprintinterface and does not take any parameters, which is suitable for retrieving added columns. Returning a slice ofColumnDefinitionis the correct type for representing added columns.
16-17: LGTM!The
GetTableNamemethod signature is well-defined and follows Go conventions. It is appropriately placed within theBlueprintinterface and does not take any parameters, which is suitable for retrieving the table name. Returning a string is the correct type for representing the table name.
18-19: LGTM!The
HasCommandmethod signature is well-defined and follows Go conventions. It is appropriately placed within theBlueprintinterface and takes acommandparameter of type string, which is suitable for specifying the command to check. Returning a boolean is the correct type for indicating the presence of a command.
20-21: LGTM!The
IDmethod signature is well-defined and follows Go conventions. It is appropriately placed within theBlueprintinterface and takes a variadiccolumnparameter of type string, which allows flexibility in specifying the column name. Returning aColumnDefinitionis the correct type for representing a column definition.
22-23: LGTM!The
Integermethod signature is well-defined and follows Go conventions. It is appropriately placed within theBlueprintinterface and takes acolumnparameter of type string, which is suitable for specifying the column name. Returning aColumnDefinitionis the correct type for representing a column definition.
24-25: LGTM!The
SetTablemethod signature is well-defined and follows Go conventions. It is appropriately placed within theBlueprintinterface and takes anameparameter of type string, which is suitable for specifying the table name. Not returning any value is appropriate for this operation.
26-27: LGTM!The
Stringmethod signature is well-defined and follows Go conventions. It is appropriately placed within theBlueprintinterface and takes acolumnparameter of type string, which is suitable for specifying the column name. The variadiclengthparameter of type int allows flexibility in specifying the length of the string column. Returning aColumnDefinitionis the correct type for representing a column definition.
28-29: LGTM!The
ToSqlmethod signature is well-defined and follows Go conventions. It is appropriately placed within theBlueprintinterface and takes the necessaryqueryandgrammarparameters to retrieve the raw SQL statements. Returning a slice of strings is the correct type for representing SQL statements.database/migration/column.go (10)
8-18: LGTM!The
ColumnDefinitionstruct is well-defined, with fields covering essential attributes of a database column. Using pointers for the fields allows for optional values, which is appropriate for representing column attributes that may not always be specified.
20-24: LGTM!The
AutoIncrementmethod is implemented correctly, following themigration.ColumnDefinitioninterface. It allows for fluent method chaining by returning the receiver and uses theconvert.Pointerfunction for consistency.
26-32: LGTM!The
GetAutoIncrementmethod is implemented correctly, following the Go convention of returning the zero value when the field isnil. It provides a convenient way to access theautoIncrementfield value.
34-40: LGTM!The
GetChangemethod is implemented correctly, following the Go convention of returning the zero value when the field isnil. It provides a convenient way to access thechangefield value.
42-44: LGTM!The
GetDefaultmethod is implemented correctly, providing a convenient way to access thedeffield value. It does not check fornilbecause thedeffield is of typeany, which can hold anilvalue.
46-52: LGTM!The
GetNamemethod is implemented correctly, following the Go convention of returning the zero value when the field isnil. It provides a convenient way to access thenamefield value.
54-60: LGTM!The
GetLengthmethod is implemented correctly, following the Go convention of returning the zero value when the field isnil. It provides a convenient way to access thelengthfield value.
62-68: LGTM!The
GetNullablemethod is implemented correctly, following the Go convention of returning the zero value (false) when the field isnil. It provides a convenient way to access thenullablefield value.
70-76: LGTM!The
GetTypemethod is implemented correctly, following the Go convention of returning the zero value when the field isnil. It provides a convenient way to access thettypefield value.
78-82: LGTM!The
Unsignedmethod is implemented correctly, following themigration.ColumnDefinitioninterface. It allows for fluent method chaining by returning the receiver and uses theconvert.Pointerfunction for consistency.database/migration/respository.go (2)
8-12: LGTM!The
Repositorystruct is well-defined with clear field names and appropriate types.
14-20: LGTM!The
NewRepositoryfunction correctly initializes a newRepositoryinstance with the provided parameters.database/migration/column_test.go (8)
24-29: LGTM!The test function correctly verifies the behavior of the
GetAutoIncrementmethod.
31-36: LGTM!The test function correctly verifies the behavior of the
GetChangemethod.
38-43: LGTM!The test function correctly verifies the behavior of the
GetDefaultmethod.
45-50: LGTM!The test function correctly verifies the behavior of the
GetNamemethod.
52-57: LGTM!The test function correctly verifies the behavior of the
GetLengthmethod.
59-64: LGTM!The test function correctly verifies the behavior of the
GetNullablemethod.
66-71: LGTM!The test function correctly verifies the behavior of the
GetTypemethod.
73-76: LGTM!The test function correctly verifies the behavior of the
Unsignedmethod.database/migration/grammars/utils_test.go (3)
12-32: LGTM!The test function is well-structured, properly mocks the required interfaces, and makes a clear assertion. The code changes look good.
34-46: LGTM!The test function covers different input types and makes clear assertions. The code changes look good.
48-65: LGTM!The test function covers both valid and invalid types, properly mocks the required interfaces, and makes clear assertions. The code changes look good.
database/service_provider.go (1)
34-42: Approve the changes with a request for clarification.The changes align with the PR objectives of implementing the
facades.Schema.Create()andfacades.Schema.DropIfExists()methods by enhancing the schema management functionality. The incorporation of configuration settings and logging into the schema construction is a positive improvement.However, please clarify the purpose of the empty string argument in the
NewSchemamethod call. It's unclear what this argument represents and how it affects the behavior of the schema.database/migration/schema.go (1)
40-46: Verify the correctness of theConnectionmethodThe
Connectionmethod creates a newSchemainstance with a newblueprintbased on the provided connection name. Ensure that all configurations such asprefixandschemaare correctly retrieved and that the newSchemainstance maintains consistent state.Run the following script to check the usage of the
Connectionmethod:Verification successful
The
Connectionmethod is correctly implemented and usedThe
Connectionmethod in theSchemastruct is implemented correctly and used consistently across the codebase. It creates a newSchemainstance with the provided connection name, retrieving the necessary configurations such as prefix and schema. This implementation ensures that each connection maintains its own state.Key observations:
- The method is defined in
database/migration/schema.go- It's used in various test files and within the migration package
- The implementation creates a new
BlueprintandSchemainstance for each connection, maintaining consistent stateNo issues were found with the implementation or usage of the
Connectionmethod.Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify that Schema.Connection is used correctly across the codebase. # Search for usage of Schema.Connection and output surrounding lines for context. rg --type go --context 3 'Schema\(\)\.Connection\('Length of output: 53
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the existence and usage of Schema type and its Connection method # Search for the definition of Schema type echo "Searching for Schema type definition:" ast-grep --lang go --pattern 'type Schema struct { $$$ }' # Search for usage of Connection method on Schema instances echo -e "\nSearching for usage of Connection method on Schema instances:" rg --type go --context 3 '\.Connection\(' # Search for references to Schema type echo -e "\nSearching for references to Schema type:" rg --type go --context 3 '\bSchema\b'Length of output: 22554
database/migration/grammars/postgres.go (1)
85-87: Potential issue with primary key assignment inModifyIncrementThe
ModifyIncrementmethod assigns a primary key to columns based on certain conditions. However, if a table already has a primary key defined elsewhere, this could lead to conflicts.Ensure that this logic does not inadvertently assign multiple primary keys to a single table.
Verification successful
ModifyIncrement safely handles primary key assignment
After careful examination of the
ModifyIncrementmethod and related code, I can confirm that the current implementation has sufficient safeguards to prevent inadvertent assignment of multiple primary keys:
- It only assigns a primary key if the column is not being changed and there's no explicit "primary" command.
- The assignment is limited to specific column types and requires auto-increment.
- No other methods in the postgres.go file directly assign primary keys.
These conditions significantly reduce the risk of conflicts with existing primary keys. The current implementation appears to be safe and well-designed.
Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify tables that might end up with multiple primary keys. # Find migrations defining primary keys elsewhere rg --type go 'AddPrimary\(' # Check where `ModifyIncrement` might assign a primary key rg --type go 'ModifyIncrement'Length of output: 603
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Examine ModifyIncrement implementation and related methods # Full implementation of ModifyIncrement echo "ModifyIncrement implementation:" sed -n '/func (r \*Postgres) ModifyIncrement/,/^}/p' database/migration/grammars/postgres.go # Search for other methods potentially assigning primary keys echo "\nOther methods potentially assigning primary keys:" rg --type go 'primary key' database/migration/grammars/postgres.go # Usage of ModifyIncrement in migration process echo "\nUsage of ModifyIncrement in migration process:" rg --type go 'ModifyIncrement\(' -C 5Length of output: 3559
database/migration/buleprint_test.go (2)
174-174: Add missing comma in test case structThere is a missing comma at the end of the test case struct, which can lead to a syntax error.
Apply this diff to fix the syntax:
- } + },Likely invalid or redundant comment.
292-295: Verify the correctness ofColumnDefinitionfieldsEnsure that all fields in the
ColumnDefinitionare correctly set, especially when using pointers. Double-check the values assigned toautoIncrement,unsigned, andttype.You can run the following script to check the
ColumnDefinitioninstances:Verification successful
To gather the necessary information for verifying the correctness of the ColumnDefinition fields, we need to locate and examine the specific instance in question. Let's run a more targeted search.
This script will search for the line containing the name field assignment we're interested in and display 10 lines before and after it, giving us a better view of the ColumnDefinition instance and its field assignments.
ColumnDefinition fields are correctly set
The verification process confirms that the ColumnDefinition fields in the TestID function are correctly set. All fields (autoIncrement, name, unsigned, and ttype) use convert.Pointer() consistently, and their values are appropriate for an ID column:
- autoIncrement: true
- unsigned: true
- ttype: "bigInteger"
These settings are suitable for an auto-incrementing, unsigned big integer ID column, which is a common and recommended practice.
Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Find all instances of ColumnDefinition and display their fields # Search for ColumnDefinition instances rg --type go 'ColumnDefinition\{[^}]+\}' -A5Length of output: 1664
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for the specific ColumnDefinition instance and display its context rg --type go 'name:\s+convert\.Pointer\("id"\)' -B10 -A10 database/migration/buleprint_test.goLength of output: 707
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 10
Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
database/migration/blueprint_test.go (1)
348-350: Reminder: Address the TODO comment for theCommentmethod implementationThere is a TODO comment indicating that the
Commentmethod needs to be implemented:// TODO Add below when implementing the comment method // s.blueprint.String("name").Comment("comment") // s.blueprint.Comment("comment")Would you like assistance in implementing the
Commentmethod? I can help provide a sample implementation or open a GitHub issue to track this task.
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (3)
- database/migration/blueprint_test.go (1 hunks)
- database/migration/grammars/utils.go (1 hunks)
- database/service_provider.go (1 hunks)
Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (2)
- database/migration/grammars/utils.go
- database/service_provider.go
Additional comments not posted (1)
database/migration/blueprint_test.go (1)
225-229: Verify thatToSqlgenerates the expected SQL statementsEnsure that the
ToSqlmethod generates the correct SQL statements for each grammar. This is crucial to prevent runtime errors due to unexpected SQL.Run the following script to list the SQL statements generated by
ToSqlfor different drivers:This will help ensure that the
ToSqlmethod is producing the correct output.
| s.blueprint.String(column, customLength) | ||
| s.Contains(s.blueprint.GetAddedColumns(), &ColumnDefinition{ | ||
| length: &customLength, | ||
| name: &column, | ||
| ttype: &ttype, | ||
| }) | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Unreliable assertion due to pointer fields in struct
Using s.Contains() may not correctly compare the structs.
Modify the test to compare the values:
-s.Contains(s.blueprint.GetAddedColumns(), &ColumnDefinition{
+addedColumns := s.blueprint.GetAddedColumns()
+s.Len(addedColumns, 2)
+s.Equal(&ColumnDefinition{
length: &customLength,
name: &column,
ttype: &ttype,
-})
+}, addedColumns[1]) // Assuming this is the second added columnCommittable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| s.blueprint.String(column, customLength) | |
| s.Contains(s.blueprint.GetAddedColumns(), &ColumnDefinition{ | |
| length: &customLength, | |
| name: &column, | |
| ttype: &ttype, | |
| }) | |
| } | |
| s.blueprint.String(column, customLength) | |
| addedColumns := s.blueprint.GetAddedColumns() | |
| s.Len(addedColumns, 2) | |
| s.Equal(&ColumnDefinition{ | |
| length: &customLength, | |
| name: &column, | |
| ttype: &ttype, | |
| }, addedColumns[1]) // Assuming this is the second added column | |
| } |
| s.Contains(s.blueprint.GetAddedColumns(), &ColumnDefinition{ | ||
| name: &name, | ||
| ttype: convert.Pointer("bigInteger"), | ||
| }) | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Assertion may fail due to pointer comparisons in structs
The test assertion using s.Contains() may not work as intended because it compares pointer addresses within the ColumnDefinition struct.
Modify the assertion to compare the values of the struct fields. You can use s.Equal() for direct comparison:
-s.Contains(s.blueprint.GetAddedColumns(), &ColumnDefinition{
+addedColumns := s.blueprint.GetAddedColumns()
+s.Len(addedColumns, 1)
+s.Equal(&ColumnDefinition{
name: &name,
ttype: convert.Pointer("bigInteger"),
-})
+}, addedColumns[0])Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| s.Contains(s.blueprint.GetAddedColumns(), &ColumnDefinition{ | |
| name: &name, | |
| ttype: convert.Pointer("bigInteger"), | |
| }) | |
| addedColumns := s.blueprint.GetAddedColumns() | |
| s.Len(addedColumns, 1) | |
| s.Equal(&ColumnDefinition{ | |
| name: &name, | |
| ttype: convert.Pointer("bigInteger"), | |
| }, addedColumns[0]) |
| s.Contains(s.blueprint.GetAddedColumns(), &ColumnDefinition{ | ||
| name: &name, | ||
| ttype: convert.Pointer("integer"), | ||
| }) | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Potential test failure due to pointer comparison in assertion
Using s.Contains() with structs that have pointer fields can cause the test to fail even if the values are equal.
Modify the assertion for value comparison:
-s.Contains(s.blueprint.GetAddedColumns(), &ColumnDefinition{
+addedColumns := s.blueprint.GetAddedColumns()
+s.Len(addedColumns, 1)
+s.Equal(&ColumnDefinition{
name: &name,
ttype: convert.Pointer("integer"),
-})
+}, addedColumns[0])Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| s.Contains(s.blueprint.GetAddedColumns(), &ColumnDefinition{ | |
| name: &name, | |
| ttype: convert.Pointer("integer"), | |
| }) | |
| addedColumns := s.blueprint.GetAddedColumns() | |
| s.Len(addedColumns, 1) | |
| s.Equal(&ColumnDefinition{ | |
| name: &name, | |
| ttype: convert.Pointer("integer"), | |
| }, addedColumns[0]) |
| s.Contains(s.blueprint.GetAddedColumns(), &ColumnDefinition{ | ||
| autoIncrement: convert.Pointer(true), | ||
| name: convert.Pointer("id"), | ||
| unsigned: convert.Pointer(true), | ||
| ttype: convert.Pointer("bigInteger"), | ||
| }) | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Tests may fail due to pointer comparisons in s.Contains()
The assertion may not behave as expected because it compares pointer addresses.
Use value comparison for the assertion:
-s.Contains(s.blueprint.GetAddedColumns(), &ColumnDefinition{
+addedColumns := s.blueprint.GetAddedColumns()
+s.Len(addedColumns, 1)
+s.Equal(&ColumnDefinition{
autoIncrement: convert.Pointer(true),
name: convert.Pointer("id"),
unsigned: convert.Pointer(true),
ttype: convert.Pointer("bigInteger"),
-})
+}, addedColumns[0])Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| s.Contains(s.blueprint.GetAddedColumns(), &ColumnDefinition{ | |
| autoIncrement: convert.Pointer(true), | |
| name: convert.Pointer("id"), | |
| unsigned: convert.Pointer(true), | |
| ttype: convert.Pointer("bigInteger"), | |
| }) | |
| addedColumns := s.blueprint.GetAddedColumns() | |
| s.Len(addedColumns, 1) | |
| s.Equal(&ColumnDefinition{ | |
| autoIncrement: convert.Pointer(true), | |
| name: convert.Pointer("id"), | |
| unsigned: convert.Pointer(true), | |
| ttype: convert.Pointer("bigInteger"), | |
| }, addedColumns[0]) |
| s.Contains(s.blueprint.GetAddedColumns(), &ColumnDefinition{ | ||
| autoIncrement: convert.Pointer(true), | ||
| name: &name, | ||
| unsigned: convert.Pointer(true), | ||
| ttype: convert.Pointer("bigInteger"), | ||
| }) | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Possible false negatives due to pointer comparison in test assertion
Using s.Contains() with structs containing pointer fields can lead to unexpected test failures.
Adjust the test to compare struct values:
-s.Contains(s.blueprint.GetAddedColumns(), &ColumnDefinition{
+addedColumns := s.blueprint.GetAddedColumns()
+s.Len(addedColumns, 2)
+s.Equal(&ColumnDefinition{
autoIncrement: convert.Pointer(true),
name: &name,
unsigned: convert.Pointer(true),
ttype: convert.Pointer("bigInteger"),
-})
+}, addedColumns[1]) // Assuming this is the second added columnCommittable suggestion was skipped due to low confidence.
|
hey @hwbrzzl really superb feature, going to be released anytime soon? |
|
Yes, will be released in v1.15, still need several months. |
📑 Description
facades.Schema.Create()andfacades.Schema.DropIfExistsmethods.table.ID(),table.String(), andtable.Integer()methods.Code:
Result:
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Blueprint,ColumnDefinition,Grammar,Migrator, andRepository.Bug Fixes
Tests
Blueprint,ColumnDefinition, and other migration functionalities to ensure reliability.Documentation
✅ Checks