bigcache
bigcache copied to clipboard
inital prep for v3.
This is the base branch to make progress on the v3 work and start getting things in place.
Signed-off-by: Mike Lloyd [email protected]
@janisz can you take a look at the build problems for me? My knowledge of go modules is weak and I can't figure out the problem.
#252
diff --git a/examples_test.go b/examples_test.go
index f447072..ccc513a 100644
--- a/examples_test.go
+++ b/examples_test.go
@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ import (
"log"
"time"
- "github.com/allegro/bigcache/v2"
+ "github.com/allegro/bigcache/v3"
)
func Example() {
diff --git a/go.mod b/go.mod
index 6f045f2..8be47fa 100644
--- a/go.mod
+++ b/go.mod
@@ -1,5 +1,3 @@
module github.com/allegro/bigcache/v3
go 1.12
-
-require github.com/allegro/bigcache/v2 v2.2.5
diff --git a/go.sum b/go.sum
index fdc2c46..e69de29 100644
--- a/go.sum
+++ b/go.sum
@@ -1,3 +0,0 @@
-github.com/allegro/bigcache v1.2.1 h1:hg1sY1raCwic3Vnsvje6TT7/pnZba83LeFck5NrFKSc=
-github.com/allegro/bigcache/v2 v2.2.5 h1:mRc8r6GQjuJsmSKQNPsR5jQVXc8IJ1xsW5YXUYMLfqI=
-github.com/allegro/bigcache/v2 v2.2.5/go.mod h1:FppZsIO+IZk7gCuj5FiIDHGygD9xvWQcqg1uIPMb6tY=
It looks like we have a flaky test TestWriteAndReadParallelSameKeyWithStats
Codecov Report
Merging #245 (7d00ccd) into master (92a824f) will increase coverage by
0.64%
. The diff coverage is100.00%
.
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #245 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 86.56% 87.20% +0.64%
==========================================
Files 15 15
Lines 640 641 +1
==========================================
+ Hits 554 559 +5
+ Misses 71 68 -3
+ Partials 15 14 -1
Impacted Files | Coverage Δ | |
---|---|---|
server/server.go | 29.03% <ø> (ø) |
|
queue/bytes_queue.go | 88.99% <100.00%> (+0.10%) |
:arrow_up: |
shard.go | 86.75% <100.00%> (+1.82%) |
:arrow_up: |
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact)
,ø = not affected
,? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 92a824f...7d00ccd. Read the comment docs.
@cristaloleg and @janisz I'm working on the interface definition for #204 via 34853d0, do we want to cut 3.0 with just the interface then add in a new default implementation in 3.1? I want to get the interface definition with 3.0, but I don't want the release to be held back on the initial implementation since this fixes #148.
IMO we should release this and add new features in feature release.
Still I'm not sure if we lost backward compatibility. Do we really need 3.0 release?
I'm not sure if we lost backward compatibility
I'm not either but better to be safe than sorry.