rename_label writes its rename once, merge or not
The rename UPDATE appeared twice: once for a merge's survivor and once for a plain rename. The branch now picks which row is renamed, and one UPDATE follows. DRY pass #2, batch 2, F7 (#5372). Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
+9
-11
@@ -1069,7 +1069,7 @@ pub fn rename_label(conn: &Connection, id: &str, name: &str) -> rusqlite::Result
|
||||
)
|
||||
.optional()?;
|
||||
|
||||
if let Some((other_id, other_created)) = clash {
|
||||
let renamed = if let Some((other_id, other_created)) = clash {
|
||||
let mine_created: String =
|
||||
conn.query_row("SELECT created_at FROM labels WHERE id = ?1", [id], |r| {
|
||||
r.get(0)
|
||||
@@ -1085,20 +1085,18 @@ pub fn rename_label(conn: &Connection, id: &str, name: &str) -> rusqlite::Result
|
||||
// knows to mark every affected NOTE dirty before the delete cascades the
|
||||
// membership rows away, which is what makes the merge reach the server.
|
||||
merge_labels(conn, &doomed, &survivor)?;
|
||||
// The survivor may still carry the old spelling — it is the one that keeps
|
||||
// existing, so it is the one that has to end up named what was asked for.
|
||||
conn.execute(
|
||||
"UPDATE labels SET name = ?1, updated_at = ?2, dirty = 1 WHERE id = ?3",
|
||||
params![name, now(), survivor],
|
||||
)?;
|
||||
return load_label(conn, &survivor);
|
||||
}
|
||||
survivor
|
||||
} else {
|
||||
id.to_string()
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
||||
// A merge's survivor may still carry the old spelling — it is the one that keeps
|
||||
// existing, so it is the one that has to end up named what was asked for.
|
||||
conn.execute(
|
||||
"UPDATE labels SET name = ?1, updated_at = ?2, dirty = 1 WHERE id = ?3",
|
||||
params![name, now(), id],
|
||||
params![name, now(), renamed],
|
||||
)?;
|
||||
load_label(conn, id)
|
||||
load_label(conn, &renamed)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
pub fn set_label_color(conn: &Connection, id: &str, color: &str) -> rusqlite::Result<Label> {
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user