Skip to content

Conversation

@cljoly
Copy link
Owner

@cljoly cljoly commented May 19, 2025

Some users may want to test downward migrations (#113). This is a
proposal for a composable set of checks (called validations), more or
less stringent, that users can run in a unit test.

More validations could be added in the future.

Closes #113

//! # Example
//!
//! ```
//! #[cfg(test)]
Copy link
Owner Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Remove this and the test annotation here and in the validate() example.

self
}

/// Run the validations
Copy link
Owner Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Place the example here instead of at the root of the module?

@coveralls
Copy link

coveralls commented May 19, 2025

Coverage Status

coverage: 95.062% (+0.6%) from 94.429%
when pulling 021cb71 on cj/opt-in-val
into 920f705 on master.

///
/// See the [`validations`] module if you want to validate other things as well, like downward
/// migrations.
///
Copy link
Owner Author

@cljoly cljoly May 19, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Also change this to use the validation module, so the logic is not duplicated.

@cljoly cljoly force-pushed the cj/opt-in-val branch 2 times, most recently from 3464c7a to e944978 Compare May 21, 2025 00:37
Some users may want to test downward migrations (#113). This is a
proposal for a composable set of checks (called validations), more or
less stringent, that users can run in a unit test.

More validations could be added in the future.

Closes #113
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.

Test downward migrations

3 participants