Open AndyCa opened 6 years ago
Merging #84 into master will not change coverage. The diff coverage is
0%
.
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #84 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 81.87% 81.87%
=======================================
Files 43 43
Lines 1142 1142
Branches 103 98 -5
=======================================
Hits 935 935
Misses 207 207
Impacted Files | Coverage Δ | |
---|---|---|
...lest/src/main/scala/sqlest/executor/Database.scala | 66.17% <0%> (ø) |
:arrow_up: |
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact)
,ø = not affected
,? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 7587870...57d8bfc. Read the comment docs.
Thanks @AndyCa, but I think the tests pass because executeBatch
does not have any test coverage.
Looking into this I don't think that what we are trying to do is going to work, at least not in this way - see this SO question for more details: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/34041410/batch-preparedstatement-with-different-sql-queries
I suspect if we want to fix the issue you observed with using dates with executeBatch
we will probably need to fix the way that generateRawSql
formats dates
replace generateRawSql with prepare statement
tests pass
haven't been able to run this locally due to difficulties with local maven