Skip to content

Revert "PG-156: replace query placeholders with actual arguments for…#517

Merged
artemgavrilov merged 1 commit intomainfrom
PG-156-revert-changes
Feb 17, 2025
Merged

Revert "PG-156: replace query placeholders with actual arguments for…#517
artemgavrilov merged 1 commit intomainfrom
PG-156-revert-changes

Conversation

@artemgavrilov
Copy link
Contributor

@artemgavrilov artemgavrilov commented Feb 17, 2025

… prepared statements (#481)"

This reverts commit c921d48.

PG-156

Description

We discovered some bugs that blocks recent release. So we decided to revert this improvement and move the ticket back to development.

Links

@artemgavrilov artemgavrilov changed the title Revert "PG -156: replace query placeholders with actual arguments for… Revert "PG-156: replace query placeholders with actual arguments for… Feb 17, 2025
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Feb 17, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 84.89%. Comparing base (c949d21) to head (9b42d71).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #517      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   85.42%   84.89%   -0.53%     
==========================================
  Files           3        3              
  Lines        1365     1298      -67     
  Branches      208      198      -10     
==========================================
- Hits         1166     1102      -64     
- Misses         97       98       +1     
+ Partials      102       98       -4     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@artemgavrilov artemgavrilov self-assigned this Feb 17, 2025
Copy link
Contributor

@jeltz jeltz left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

There should be an explanation, ideally in both the pull request and the commit, for why this change was reverted. If we run into a problem in the future it would be very useful to be able to understand why.

@artemgavrilov
Copy link
Contributor Author

There should be an explanation, ideally in both the pull request and the commit, for why this change was reverted. If we run into a problem in the future it would be very useful to be able to understand why.

Added short explanation to the PR description (it will became commit description after squash)

@artemgavrilov artemgavrilov requested a review from jeltz February 17, 2025 16:04
Copy link
Contributor

@jeltz jeltz left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Good enough description for me.

@artemgavrilov artemgavrilov merged commit fd43b75 into main Feb 17, 2025
25 of 26 checks passed
@artemgavrilov artemgavrilov deleted the PG-156-revert-changes branch February 17, 2025 17:13
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants