Replies: 3 comments
|
@sophie-cluml Do you think this discussion is significant enough to move forward as a dedicated issue? |
|
Based on the commit message in ddbea3f |
|
Based on the verbal discussion, we agreed to keep direct path-based access only for special cases where |
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
While reviewing the migration code, I noticed that the current implementation accesses the database directly via a path, instead of using the previously existing
Storeabstraction. (from this commit)From a code perspective, this change has a few notable implications:
Store.Storeis no longer applied during migration.Given that the
Storeabstraction previously centralized database access and related concerns, it may be worth considering whether restoring theStore-based approach in migration code would be a better default, unless there is a clear reason to avoid it.I’d like to ask for input on whether reverting this part of the migration logic back to using
Storemakes sense, or if the current direct-access approach is intentional and preferable going forward.Any guidance on the intended direction would be appreciated.
All reactions