-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 94
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
✨ Add new SyncEngine, support async and sync code - with fixed session #231
Conversation
…s already covered
…enable transactions
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #231 +/- ##
===========================================
- Coverage 100.00% 99.94% -0.06%
===========================================
Files 38 38
Lines 2725 3424 +699
Branches 413 483 +70
===========================================
+ Hits 2725 3422 +697
- Misses 0 1 +1
- Partials 0 1 +1
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
📣 Codecov can now indicate which changes are the most critical in Pull Requests. Learn more |
I added a couple of small tests to check the errors when |
Awesome @tiangolo ! There is just a tiny rebase required and it will be good for a merge! Can't wait to see what you plan to do with bulk_writes and switch_collection! |
Actually I though about it again and it might be quite painful for existing users to have to change the dependency in order to upgrade to the new release. |
Awesome, thanks a lot! 🚀 About having Motor as optional or not, I think that's totally up to you. I get it that as ODMantic was always Motor-specific it could feel weird suddenly having that as optional. If it was a new project, I guess it would be a no-brainer but I get that it can make sense to keep it required for backwards compatibility. Maybe it can be done in a future release after having some warning in the docs for a while or something like that. Anyway, I don't feel strongly about it in one way or the other. 😅 |
✨ Add new SyncEngine, support async and sync code - with fixed session
This is the same as #225, but it includes the fixes to share the same session in #227
This would supersede #225 if the session fix in #227 is accepted.
I'm doing it here as an additional PR because there are a couple of changes and fixes needed in the new
SyncEngine
to handle that same issue with the session.