Codecov Report

Merging #528 into master will increase coverage by 1.56%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #528      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   40.92%   42.48%   +1.56%     
==========================================
  Files          68       68              
  Lines        9823     9314     -509     
==========================================
- Hits         4020     3957      -63     
+ Misses       5803     5357     -446

And also the migration files?

Shoulf I include both migrations, only the one of interest as migrations/$db_name or only the one of interest as migrations/ (maybe not the latest as it will not be compatible with our documentation?)

I’m not sure i’ve asked this before, but, how hard would it be to support both databases? at the same time?

I see 2 ways of doing so :

• using Box<Connection> everywhere
• creating an enum whose variants are the different backend we support, which implement Connection (and some others Diesel traits) by calling the function on it’s inner type
  But I don’t know how any of those would play with r2d2 (the connection manager)

Couldn’t it be possible to make all our models generic over the connection type that is used? (but that’s probably more work than what you proposed)

And for the migrations, the best is to have only the relevant one in migrations/$db to make the archive smaller and keep compatibility with our current docs.