This PR adds a context parameter to a bunch of methods. Some helper
`xxxCtx()` methods got replaced with the normal name now.
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
Fix #19513
This PR introduce a new db method `InTransaction(context.Context)`,
and also builtin check on `db.TxContext` and `db.WithTx`.
There is also a new method `db.AutoTx` has been introduced but could be used by other PRs.
`WithTx` will always open a new transaction, if a transaction exist in context, return an error.
`AutoTx` will try to open a new transaction if no transaction exist in context.
That means it will always enter a transaction if there is no error.
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
Co-authored-by: 6543 <6543@obermui.de>
I found myself wondering whether a PR I scheduled for automerge was
actually merged. It was, but I didn't receive a mail notification for it
- that makes sense considering I am the doer and usually don't want to
receive such notifications. But ideally I want to receive a notification
when a PR was merged because I scheduled it for automerge.
This PR implements exactly that.
The implementation works, but I wonder if there's a way to avoid passing
the "This PR was automerged" state down so much. I tried solving this
via the database (checking if there's an automerge scheduled for this PR
when sending the notification) but that did not work reliably, probably
because sending the notification happens async and the entry might have
already been deleted. My implementation might be the most
straightforward but maybe not the most elegant.
Signed-off-by: Andrew Thornton <art27@cantab.net>
Co-authored-by: Lauris BH <lauris@nix.lv>
Co-authored-by: Andrew Thornton <art27@cantab.net>
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
When migrating add several more important sanity checks:
* SHAs must be SHAs
* Refs must be valid Refs
* URLs must be reasonable
Signed-off-by: Andrew Thornton <art27@cantab.net>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Thornton <art27@cantab.net>
Co-authored-by: techknowlogick <matti@mdranta.net>
In #21031 we have discovered that on very big tables postgres will use a
search involving the sort term in preference to the restrictive index.
Therefore we add another index for postgres and update the original migration.
Fix #21031
Signed-off-by: Andrew Thornton <art27@cantab.net>
