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

Add full support for on conflict clause in SQLite #5888

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
May 20, 2024

Conversation

Enduriel
Copy link
Contributor

@Enduriel Enduriel commented May 17, 2024

Brief summary of the change made

Are there any other side effects of this change that we should be aware of?

No

Pull Request checklist

  • Please confirm you have completed any of the necessary steps below.

  • Included test cases to demonstrate any code changes, which may be one or more of the following:

    • .yml rule test cases in test/fixtures/rules/std_rule_cases.
    • .sql/.yml parser test cases in test/fixtures/dialects (note YML files can be auto generated with tox -e generate-fixture-yml).
    • Full autofix test cases in test/fixtures/linter/autofix.
    • Other.
  • Added appropriate documentation for the change.

  • Created GitHub issues for any relevant followup/future enhancements if appropriate.

I'm not 100% clear on how you guys structure merges into main, I decided to just make a single branch with all my commits as it was easier for me, if you prefer I can split it back up as the commits are pretty clearly separate with the caveat that 2314d7b depends on ef751dd which is why I structured it this way.

rewrote this from scratch because sqlite diverges significantly
close sqlfluff#5732
unfortunately this means we are no longer able to simply modify
the existing ansi.ColumnConstraintSegment and instead have to rewrite
it from scratch

close sqlfluff#3872
@Enduriel Enduriel changed the title feat(sqlite): add upsert clause support Add full support for on conflict clause in SQLite May 17, 2024
@Enduriel Enduriel marked this pull request as ready for review May 17, 2024 12:38
Copy link
Contributor

@WittierDinosaur WittierDinosaur left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@Enduriel
Copy link
Contributor Author

Should also close #5733

@WittierDinosaur WittierDinosaur added this pull request to the merge queue May 17, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented May 17, 2024

Coverage Results ✅

Name    Stmts   Miss  Cover   Missing
-------------------------------------
TOTAL   17771      0   100%

225 files skipped due to complete coverage.

@coveralls
Copy link

coveralls commented May 17, 2024

Coverage Status

coverage: 99.985%. remained the same
when pulling f3a7534 on Enduriel:sqlite-more-missing-features
into d649e97 on sqlfluff:main.

@github-merge-queue github-merge-queue bot removed this pull request from the merge queue due to failed status checks May 17, 2024
@Enduriel
Copy link
Contributor Author

@WittierDinosaur the auto merge seems to have failed because of some generic coveralls error, maybe you could try again? I've got some more commits I'd like to merge in but they depend on the features in here and I don't want to tack them on at this point since this PR has a nice scope imo.

@greg-finley greg-finley added this pull request to the merge queue May 20, 2024
Merged via the queue into sqlfluff:main with commit a2b55e7 May 20, 2024
30 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants