[core] Expose dbPromise in StateStore
#1171
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
savetheclocktower
requested changes
Dec 19, 2024
|
@savetheclocktower Thanks for giving this a review, I've added the specs and that lead to me finding out this was still somewhat broken, so I've also gone ahead and fixed it. We should be good to go now |
|
Just wanting to add it looks like the only failure in CI is due to the issues resolved in #1173 so they shouldn't be considered here on this PR. |
mauricioszabo
approved these changes
Dec 30, 2024
|
Thanks @mauricioszabo |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The getter method of
dbPromisewithinStateStoreis relied on by the community packageproject-plus, but with the release of Pulsarv1.122.0and specifically the introduction of the new StateStore database in #917 that method has been hidden away within each database's own code.But because both database's still have this method, it seems entirely possible we could just expose this the same way we expose their other methods.
Closes #1169