Upgrade diesel from 0.16 -> 1.x

[erikjohnston]

See diesel changelog for details about the API changes.

Admittedly this is mainly motivated because I was getting confused at the old on_conflict syntax compared with newer versions of diesel.

(I also had to add #![feature(never_type)] to make rfcbot compile at all).

(I cheekily ran cargo update as well, which I had forgotten about).

[erikjohnston]

Looks like the test failures is due to failing to cargo install cargo-update, which I don't think is my fault?

[anp]

Hi, thanks so much!

Sorry about broken CI, I believe the issue here is being caused by a couple of issues that should be resolved in #232. Once that passes and lands you should be able to rebase onto master and get CI happy again.

[Centril]

#232 is now merged :)

[anp]

Awesome! One question about the version changes.

[anp]

Reading the changelog you linked (super helpful), looks like you may want to double check this: https://github.com/diesel-rs/diesel/blob/master/CHANGELOG.md#added-4

[erikjohnston]

Woops, that completely passed me by. Good catch!

[erikjohnston]

I've rebased and replaced r2d2, and yay! The tests pass! Thank you both.

I forgot to mention that currently the diesel macros are causing a load of warnings during compilation, due to diesel-rs/diesel#1785. The fix has already landed, but hasn't been released yet. We can suppress these warnings for now by adding #![allow(proc_macro_derive_resolution_fallback)], but I'm not sure if we'd want to keep the warnings on to remind us that things will break if we forget to upgrade diesel again. What do people think?

[anp]

@Centril do you have a strong opinion about how to handle the warnings from diesel?

[erikjohnston]

@Centril do you have a strong opinion about how to handle the warnings from diesel?

I'm guessing by the tumbleweed it might be a no? 😇

[Centril]

I have no opinions at all :)

@anp please merge this if you are satisfied with it =P