refactor: Clean up migration logic #2310

Merged
ginger merged 4 commits from ginger/migration-cleanup into main 2026-10-01 18:43:54 +00:00
Owner

This pull request cleans up the extremely ugly and footgun-prone database migration logic to avoid future silly mistakes.

Pull request checklist:

  • This pull request targets the main branch, and the branch is named something other than
    main.
  • I have written an appropriate pull request title and my description is clear.
  • I understand I am responsible for the contents of this pull request.
  • I have followed the contributing guidelines:
<!-- In order to help reviewers know what your pull request does at a glance, you should ensure that 1. Your PR title is a short, single sentence describing what you changed 2. You have described in more detail what you have changed, why you have changed it, what the intended effect is, and why you think this will be beneficial to the project. If you have made any potentially strange/questionable design choices, but didn't feel they'd benefit from code comments, please don't mention them here - after opening your pull request, go to "files changed", and click on the "+" symbol in the line number gutter, and attach comments to the lines that you think would benefit from some clarification. --> This pull request cleans up the extremely ugly and footgun-prone database migration logic to avoid [future silly mistakes](https://forgejo.ellis.link/continuwuation/continuwuity/pulls/1974). <!-- Example: This pull request allows us to warp through time and space ten times faster than before by double-inverting the warp drive with hyperheated jump fluid, both making the drive faster and more efficient. This resolves the common issue where we have to wait more than 10 milliseconds to engage, use, and disengage the warp drive when travelling between galaxies. --> <!-- Closes: #... --> <!-- Fixes: #... --> <!-- Uncomment the above line(s) if your pull request fixes an issue or closes another pull request by superseding it. Replace `#...` with the issue/pr number, such as `#123`. --> **Pull request checklist:** <!-- You need to complete these before your PR can be considered. If you aren't sure about some, feel free to ask for clarification in #dev:continuwuity.org. --> - [x] This pull request targets the `main` branch, and the branch is named something other than `main`. - [x] I have written an appropriate pull request title and my description is clear. - [x] I understand I am responsible for the contents of this pull request. - I have followed the [contributing guidelines][c1]: - [x] My contribution follows the [code style][c2], if applicable. - [x] I ran [pre-commit checks][c1pc] before opening/drafting this pull request. - [x] I have [tested my contribution][c1t] (or proof-read it for documentation-only changes) myself, if applicable. This includes ensuring code compiles. - [x] My commit messages follow the [commit message format][c1cm] and are descriptive. <!-- Notes on these requirements: - While not required, we encourage you to sign your commits with GPG or SSH to attest the authenticity of your changes. - While we allow LLM-assisted contributions, we do not appreciate contributions that are low quality, which is typical of machine-generated contributions that have not had a lot of love and care from a human. Please do not open a PR if all you have done is asked ChatGPT to tidy up the codebase with a +-100,000 diff. - In the case of code style violations, reviewers may leave review comments/change requests indicating what the ideal change would look like. For example, a reviewer may suggest you lower a log level, or use `match` instead of `if/else` etc. - In the case of code style violations, pre-commit check failures, minor things like typos/spelling errors, and in some cases commit format violations, reviewers may modify your branch directly, typically by making changes and adding a commit. Particularly in the latter case, a reviewer may rebase your commits to squash "spammy" ones (like "fix", "fix", "actually fix"), and reword commit messages that don't satisfy the format. - Pull requests MUST pass the `Checks` CI workflows to be capable of being merged. This can only be bypassed in exceptional circumstances. If your CI flakes, let us know in matrix:r/dev:continuwuity.org. - Pull requests have to be based on the latest `main` commit before being merged. If the main branch changes while you're making your changes, you should make sure you rebase on main before opening a PR. Your branch will be rebased on main before it is merged if it has fallen behind. - We typically only do fast-forward merges, so your entire commit log will be included. Once in main, it's difficult to get out cleanly, so put on your best dress, smile for the cameras! --> [c1]: https://forgejo.ellis.link/continuwuation/continuwuity/src/branch/main/CONTRIBUTING.md [c2]: https://forgejo.ellis.link/continuwuation/continuwuity/src/branch/main/docs/development/code_style.mdx [c1pc]: https://forgejo.ellis.link/continuwuation/continuwuity/src/branch/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#pre-commit-checks [c1t]: https://forgejo.ellis.link/continuwuation/continuwuity/src/branch/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#running-tests-locally [c1cm]: https://forgejo.ellis.link/continuwuation/continuwuity/src/branch/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#commit-messages
refactor: Clean up migration logic
Some checks failed
Auto Labeler / Apply labels based on changed files (pull_request_target) Successful in 4s
Checks / Prek / Check changed files (pull_request) Successful in 7s
Checks / Changelog / Check changelog is added (pull_request_target) Successful in 8s
Documentation / Build and Deploy Documentation (pull_request) Successful in 1m8s
Checks / Prek / Pre-commit & Formatting (pull_request) Successful in 1m10s
Checks / Prek / Clippy and Cargo Tests (pull_request) Has been cancelled
f0e22b7bdf
refactor: Remove some unnecessary macro logic
All checks were successful
Checks / Changelog / Check changelog is added (pull_request_target) Successful in 10s
Checks / Prek / Check changed files (pull_request) Successful in 8s
Documentation / Build and Deploy Documentation (pull_request) Successful in 1m5s
Checks / Prek / Pre-commit & Formatting (pull_request) Successful in 1m10s
Checks / Prek / Clippy and Cargo Tests (pull_request) Successful in 9m15s
5f9e62694b
fix: Don't bump version if it's already bumped
All checks were successful
Checks / Changelog / Check changelog is added (pull_request_target) Successful in 8s
Checks / Prek / Check changed files (pull_request) Successful in 7s
Documentation / Build and Deploy Documentation (pull_request) Successful in 1m7s
Checks / Prek / Pre-commit & Formatting (pull_request) Successful in 1m10s
Checks / Prek / Clippy and Cargo Tests (pull_request) Successful in 9m22s
71b4105547
@ -44,0 +150,4 @@
services.server.runtime().spawn(async move {
unembed_unsigned_info(metadata, timeline).await.expect(
"unembed_unsigned_info failed! your database is broken, sorry >.>",
Owner

This error message is unhelpful and also, unless expect() panics with the context of the result, masks the actual error message

This error message is unhelpful and also, unless expect() panics with the context of the result, masks the actual error message
Author
Owner

expect prints the error payload, yes. like you said yourself, the only way for unembed_unsigned_info to fail is if you have a PDU with no raw ID, in which case your DB is irreparably hosed

`expect` prints the error payload, yes. like you said yourself, the only way for `unembed_unsigned_info` to fail is if you have a PDU with no raw ID, in which case your DB is irreparably hosed
Author
Owner

actually unembed_unsigned_info can only fail by panicking so I can just remove this entirely

actually `unembed_unsigned_info` can only fail by panicking so I can just remove this entirely
ginger marked this conversation as resolved
nex requested changes 2026-10-01 16:40:29 +00:00
Dismissed
@ -44,0 +126,4 @@
migration!(split_userid_password),
// This is backwards compatible because old versions will recreate the keyspace if it's
// missing.
migration!("drop_roomsynctoken_shortstatehash" => obliterate_roomsynctoken_shortstatehash_with_extreme_prejudice),
Owner

nit: no const? kinda inconsistent

nit: no const? kinda inconsistent
Author
Owner

no const is necessary, this is the only place where the migration marker is spelled out in the file

no const is necessary, this is the only place where the migration marker is spelled out in the file
nex marked this conversation as resolved
@ -44,0 +153,4 @@
"unembed_unsigned_info failed! your database is broken, sorry >.>",
);
db["global"].insert(b"unembed_unsigned_info", []);
});
Owner

Is there a reason to move the marker out of the function itself?

Is there a reason to move the marker out of the function itself?
Author
Owner

it's more consistent with the other migration functions

it's more consistent with the other migration functions
Owner

i guess

i guess
nex marked this conversation as resolved
nex approved these changes 2026-10-01 18:42:21 +00:00
fix: Make unembed_unsigned_info infallible
All checks were successful
Checks / Prek / Check changed files (pull_request) Successful in 5s
Checks / Changelog / Check changelog is added (pull_request_target) Successful in 9s
Checks / Prek / Pre-commit & Formatting (pull_request) Successful in 1m12s
Documentation / Build and Deploy Documentation (pull_request) Successful in 1m15s
Checks / Prek / Clippy and Cargo Tests (pull_request) Successful in 8m43s
a2b0eb370c
ginger merged commit cb7af18bc2 into main 2026-10-01 18:43:54 +00:00
ginger deleted branch ginger/migration-cleanup 2026-10-01 18:43:54 +00:00
Sign in to join this conversation.
No reviewers
nex
No milestone
No assignees
2 participants
Notifications
Due date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set

Reference
continuwuation/continuwuity!2310
No description provided.