Closed bsbds closed 1 week ago
Attention: Patch coverage is 86.32479%
with 16 lines
in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
Project coverage is 75.70%. Comparing base (
e35b35a
) to head (d836804
). Report is 117 commits behind head on master.
:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.
Though xline currently has only one StorageApi impl,the generic is make sense for the community if someone want to use another storage engine.
Though xline currently has only one StorageApi impl,the generic is make sense for the community if someone want to use another storage engine.
The engine
crate already provides a level of abstraction, I think introducing the StorageApi
would be redundant.
If we remove the DB generic here, is it necessary to keep
StorageApi
trait?
removed
Please briefly answer these questions:
what problem are you trying to solve? (or if there's no problem, what's the motivation for this change?)
The DB generic is redundant as no other type will ever implement
StorageApi
in Xline. This change aims to enhance readability of the codebase.what changes does this pull request make?
are there any non-obvious implications of these changes? (does it break compatibility with previous versions, etc)