Bugfix/nullable transaction return #559
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #559 +/- ##
===========================================
- Coverage 90.08% 90.06% -0.02%
===========================================
Files 74 74
Lines 1855 1852 -3
===========================================
- Hits 1671 1668 -3
Misses 184 184
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
mqus
force-pushed
the
bugfix/nullable-transaction-return
branch
from
84b8ab2
to
8d49080
Compare
| @@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ class TransactionMethodWriter implements Writer { | |||
| return Method((builder) => builder | |||
| ..annotations.add(overrideAnnotationExpression) | |||
| ..returns = refer(method.returnType.getDisplayString( | |||
| withNullability: false, | |||
| withNullability: true, | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
❓ Do we also get support for the case described in #557 where we don't return a nullable Future but a Future wrapping a nullable type (e.g Future<Task?>)? If so, could you add another test to verify the behavior?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we had that support already, but I'll add a test.
|
I've tried to return Future<Object?> from transaction but it still causes an error in generated db file. Will there be support for return Future with nullable object? |
Fixes #557 and maybe adresses #558