feat: upsert with on-conflict support

[Oisangui]

• [x] on_conflict support as described here https://postgrest.org/en/stable/api.html#on-conflict.

Closes #139

[sourcery-ai[bot]]

Sourcery Code Quality Report

❌  Merging this PR will decrease code quality in the affected files by 0.52%.

Quality metrics	Before	After	Change
Complexity	0.87 ⭐	0.93 ⭐	0.06 👎
Method Length	33.16 ⭐	33.54 ⭐	0.38 👎
Working memory	6.46 🙂	6.59 🙂	0.13 👎
Quality	85.63% ⭐	85.11% ⭐	-0.52% 👎

Other metrics	Before	After	Change
Lines	770	780	10

Changed files	Quality Before	Quality After	Quality Change
postgrest/base_request_builder.py	86.78% ⭐	86.17% ⭐	-0.61% 👎
postgrest/_async/request_builder.py	82.94% ⭐	82.57% ⭐	-0.37% 👎
postgrest/_sync/request_builder.py	82.96% ⭐	82.59% ⭐	-0.37% 👎

Here are some functions in these files that still need a tune-up:

File	Function	Complexity	Length	Working Memory	Quality	Recommendation
postgrest/_async/request_builder.py	AsyncRequestBuilder.upsert	0 ⭐	51 ⭐	12 😞	72.70% 🙂	Extract out complex expressions
postgrest/_sync/request_builder.py	SyncRequestBuilder.upsert	0 ⭐	51 ⭐	12 😞	72.70% 🙂	Extract out complex expressions
postgrest/_async/request_builder.py	AsyncRequestBuilder.insert	0 ⭐	46 ⭐	10 😞	77.13% ⭐	Extract out complex expressions
postgrest/_sync/request_builder.py	SyncRequestBuilder.insert	0 ⭐	46 ⭐	10 😞	77.13% ⭐	Extract out complex expressions

Legend and Explanation

The emojis denote the absolute quality of the code:

• ⭐ excellent
• 🙂 good
• 😞 poor
• ⛔ very poor

The 👍 and 👎 indicate whether the quality has improved or gotten worse with this pull request.

---

Please see our documentation here for details on how these metrics are calculated.

We are actively working on this report - lots more documentation and extra metrics to come!

Help us improve this quality report!

[Oisangui]

@anand2312 Could you give me a hand telling me what is missing? I'm not very knowledgeable with python repos.

[troels]

What is holding this one back? It would be a very nice feature to have!

[Oisangui]

What is holding this one back? It would be a very nice feature to have!

@troels

Waiting for someone to review the changes that @anand2312 requested.

[anand2312]

Sorry for the delay -- can you add some test cases for this case as well please? Otherwise this LGTM, ready to merge @Oisangui

[J0]

Think this should be good to go - if merged I'll add test in a FLUP

[J0]

Let's also pull in master and make sure the tests pass first though.

[altryne]

Would love this to get merged, literally facing this RN and got to this issue. The only workaround is SQL func and RPC call?

[J0]

Hey,

@altryne noted - we'll merge by tomorrow evening if there are no major issues. Will validate this today evening + add necessary tests/ fixes. From now till then then I think the main workaround would be to use a sql func and an RPC call.

Upd: Busy day, probably going to look at this tmrw instead

[LeSchuch]

Hey,

I'm a little bit lost on where to use the on_conflict parameter in a request. For example, this is not working : supabase.table("user").upsert([{"id": 5, "name": "John"}], on_conflict=["id"]).execute()

Could you provide a simple example on how to use this parameter ?

[Oisangui]

Hey,

I'm a little bit lost on where to use the on_conflict parameter in a request. For example, this is not working : supabase.table("user").upsert([{"id": 5, "name": "John"}], on_conflict=["id"]).execute()

Could you provide a simple example on how to use this parameter ?

You are passing a list, it should be a string.

[LeSchuch]

Hum, I have this error even if I'm passing it as a string : TypeError: SyncRequestBuilder.upsert() got an unexpected keyword argument 'on_conflict'