feat: use DateTime abstraction from apalis-sql#30
Conversation
DateTime abstraction from apalis-sql
Codecov Report❌ Patch coverage is
📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know! |
|
@Himmelschmidt Did you run tests locally? I think you are basing your HEAD an old version and need to rebase |
I have run the tests and aside from the doctest there were no failures. I didn't fix it before, figured it might be out of scope, fixed it now. But I don't think that's what you were talking about |
But the previous doctests passed, what changed? |
|
Wasn't there a new If you'd like, i can delete this one and start fresh from HEAD to get a clean commit history |
|
I think it should be ok, but it’s important to watch out for regressions.
Maybe just stash your changes then pull the latest, then pop those changes
and push.
…On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 at 19:18, Himmelschmidt ***@***.***> wrote:
*Himmelschmidt* left a comment (apalis-dev/apalis-sqlite#30)
<#30 (comment)>
I didn't fix it before, figured it might be out of scope, fixed it now.
But the previous doctests passed, what changed?
Wasn't there a new TaskBuilderExt added? I believe it was added in rc1
and when I started this PR, the apalis deps were still pointing at beta 1
(iirc).
If you'd like, i can delete this one and start fresh from HEAD to get a
clean commit history
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#30 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AWXVRGXGBNUVKX3MS4U26RL4FZ7O3AVCNFSM6AAAAACQCH5OV6VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZTOMRUGYZDGMJWHA>
.
You are receiving this because your review was requested.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
|
Regarding signing commits, I think you need to rebase all of the commits.
Or squash them into one signed commit.
On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 at 22:13, Geoffrey Mureithi ***@***.***>
wrote:
… I think it should be ok, but it’s important to watch out for regressions.
Maybe just stash your changes then pull the latest, then pop those changes
and push.
On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 at 19:18, Himmelschmidt ***@***.***>
wrote:
> *Himmelschmidt* left a comment (apalis-dev/apalis-sqlite#30)
> <#30 (comment)>
>
> I didn't fix it before, figured it might be out of scope, fixed it now.
>
> But the previous doctests passed, what changed?
>
> Wasn't there a new TaskBuilderExt added? I believe it was added in rc1
> and when I started this PR, the apalis deps were still pointing at beta 1
> (iirc).
>
> If you'd like, i can delete this one and start fresh from HEAD to get a
> clean commit history
>
> —
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <#30 (comment)>,
> or unsubscribe
> <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AWXVRGXGBNUVKX3MS4U26RL4FZ7O3AVCNFSM6AAAAACQCH5OV6VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZTOMRUGYZDGMJWHA>
> .
> You are receiving this because your review was requested.Message ID:
> ***@***.***>
>
|
Replace direct chrono dependency with DateTime/DateTimeExt from apalis-sql, enabling support for both chrono and time datetime libraries via feature flags. Changes: - Add `chrono` (default) and `time` feature flags - Use DateTimeExt::from_unix_timestamp instead of chrono::Utc.timestamp_opt - Update apalis dependencies to 0.7.0-rc.2 - Move chrono to dev-dependencies (only needed for tests/examples) Related: apalis-dev/apalis#655
962de03 to
2ecb4ce
Compare
Use
DateTimeandDateTimeExtfrom apalis-sql instead of direct chrono dependency.Adds
chronoandtimefeature flags for datetime library selection.Related: apalis-dev/apalis#655