Document Zold::Upgrades #343 #353
Conversation
|
Job #353 is now in scope, role is |
|
This pull request #353 is assigned to @ledestin/z, here is why; the budget is 15 minutes, see §4; please, read §27 and when you decide to accept the changes, inform @yegor256/z (the architect) right in this ticket; if you decide that this PR should not be accepted ever, also inform the architect; this blog post will help you understand what is expected from a code reviewer; there will be a monetary reward for this job |
| @@ -2,6 +2,22 @@ | |||
|
|
|||
| module Zold | |||
| # Class to manage data upgrades (when zold itself upgrades). | |||
| # | |||
| # This class will write the version file to the zoldata directory. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@botanicus what happened to the draft? This text doesn't explain the case of missing version file.
|
@botanicus thanks, please see my comment |
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #353 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 33.44% 33.76% +0.31%
==========================================
Files 54 50 -4
Lines 2470 2343 -127
==========================================
- Hits 826 791 -35
+ Misses 1644 1552 -92
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
|
@ledestin added. Is it good now? |
lib/zold/upgrades.rb
Outdated
| # `upgrades/` have to run. They are named `<version>.rb`, so for | ||
| # instance `upgrades/0.0.1.rb` etc. | ||
| # | ||
| # Only the scripts from the data version up need to run. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@botanicus greater than the data version? Or >=?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If we're on 0.1 and want to migrate to 0.2, we should run 0.2.rb, 0.1.rb run already when we upgraded to 0.1, I'd say. So I think this is correct.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@botanicus I have a hard time understanding it, and one of my mates too. Could you please change it in the docs?
|
@botanicus thanks, but one more question |
|
@botanicus what happened? you didn't reply to my last comment. |
|
@ledestin sorry, I'm traveling and didn't have time. Let me rephrase it. |
|
@ledestin I just changed that. |
| # up to date. | ||
| # | ||
| # If the data version is lower than Zold::VERSION, we will look into | ||
| # the `upgrades/` directory and any scripts from the data version |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@botanicus please don't use data version up, it's ambiguous at least to me. You can also ask @yegor256 to resolve our conflict.
|
@botanicus unfortunately, not the change I requested |
This is the
Zold::Upgradesdocumentation requested by @ledestin in #343.