Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Implement SqlConnection.GetSchemaAsync #3005

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

edwardneal
Copy link
Contributor

Contributes to #646, adding SqlConnection.GetSchemaAsync. This is the only .NET 5.0+ method which would benefit from end-to-end async plumbing to remove the async-over-sync which is currently present. The other two schema methods on DbDataReader and IDbColumnSchemaGenerator already operate from the cached metadata; my implementation on DbDataReader wouldn't vary from the default one.

I've added some basic documentation, but this effectively follows the SqlCommand.[Something]Async pattern of "An asynchronous version of [Something], which <etc.>"

Since .NET Framework doesn't have the base DbConnection.GetSchemaAsync methods, there's nothing to override. They'll be available anyway.

I've also moved the netfx GetSchema methods from SqlConnectionHelper.cs to SqlConnection.cs, to align that part of it with netcore. This contributes to the merge slightly.

cancellationToken.ThrowIfCancellationRequested();
#if NET
DataTable schemaTable = isAsync ? await reader.GetSchemaTableAsync(cancellationToken).ConfigureAwait(false) : reader.GetSchemaTable();
#else
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Would it make sense to have the .NET Framework path also use an async API here? Unless I'm missing something, the exact same methods/code could be define for both, with the sole extension that in .NET Framework it wouldn't override?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I can do that; I thought it might look a little clumsy for the .NET Framework version of Microsoft.Data.SqlClient to have a dedicated async method which isn't present on System.Data.SqlClient and which doesn't actually run asynchronously.

(GetSchemaTable just constructs a DataTable from the cached metadata - there's nothing which we can make async.)

@@ -107,7 +109,7 @@ protected virtual void Dispose(bool disposing)
}
}

private DataTable ExecuteCommand(DataRow requestedCollectionRow, string[] restrictions, DbConnection connection)
private async ValueTask<DataTable> ExecuteCommandAsync(DataRow requestedCollectionRow, string[] restrictions, DbConnection connection, bool isAsync, CancellationToken cancellationToken)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Really nice to be seeing proper async/await in SqlClient!

Copy link

codecov bot commented Nov 14, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 72.48%. Comparing base (4052186) to head (63dae61).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #3005   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   72.48%   72.48%           
=======================================
  Files         288      288           
  Lines       59493    59508   +15     
=======================================
+ Hits        43123    43135   +12     
- Misses      16370    16373    +3     
Flag Coverage Δ
addons 92.58% <ø> (ø)
netcore 75.43% <100.00%> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
netfx 70.93% <100.00%> (+<0.01%) ⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants