add missing QueryUnbufferedAsync<T> API #1912
Conversation
|
I see a new release for this but nothing published to nuget, is this planned to be pushed? |
|
It is there. If you use the version number from the release notes it should
work.
…On Mon, 12 Jun 2023, 16:47 Michael Plaisted, ***@***.***> wrote:
I see a new release for this but nothing published to nuget, is this
planned to be pushed?
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#1912 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAEHMBTRHW2BBV42VUNP5DXK42Z7ANCNFSM6AAAAAAZAW2OMU>
.
You are receiving this because you modified the open/close state.Message
ID: ***@***.***>
|
|
|
||
| var func = tuple.Func; | ||
|
|
||
| var convertToType = Nullable.GetUnderlyingType(effectiveType) ?? effectiveType; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This convertToType variable is not used. I guess it was meant to be used 4 lines below?
yield return GetValue<T>(reader, convertToType, val);There was a problem hiding this comment.
You're almost certainly correct; thanks, good eyes! I'll try to look at this tomorrow (I guess I need some tests that do QueryUnbufferedAsync<int>, QueryUnbufferedAsync<int?>, QueryUnbufferedAsync<string>, QueryUnbufferedAsync<SomeValueType> and QueryUnbufferedAsync<SomeClass>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Or maybe it should just be deleted because apparently the convertToType is already computed inside GetValue<T>(…).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
added for tracking: #1920 (because already merged)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
good eyes
Actually, it's JetBrains Rider dimming unused variables. 😉
| /// A sequence of data of <typeparamref name="T"/>; if a basic type (int, string, etc) is queried then the data from the first column is assumed, otherwise an instance is | ||
| /// created per row, and a direct column-name===member-name mapping is assumed (case insensitive). | ||
| /// </returns> | ||
| public static IAsyncEnumerable<T> QueryUnbufferedAsync<T>(this DbConnection cnn, string sql, object param = null, DbTransaction transaction = null, int? commandTimeout = null, CommandType? commandType = null) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is there a reason this is using a DbConnection and not an IDbConnection?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Async doesn't work on IDbConnection, it never has. We should have done this with the old methods but can't break things now - IDbConnection simply predates async being a thing, so it never had support. The methods needed are on the abstract base class.
I am not proposing to add the myriad of multi-read
<T0, T1, ..., T5>APIs that go with this