fix(tables): use explicit timestamps for expiration - #7689
Conversation
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.
|
|
|
@cubic-dev-ai review this PR |
@j15z I have started the AI code review. It will take a few minutes to complete. |
|
@cubic-dev-ai review this PR |
@j15z I have started the AI code review. It will take a few minutes to complete. |
|
@cubic-dev-ai review this PR |
@j15z I have started the AI code review. It will take a few minutes to complete. |
|
@cubic-dev-ai review this PR |
@j15z I have started the AI code review. It will take a few minutes to complete. |
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
6bc3e70 to
416a199
Compare
|
@cubic-dev-ai review this PR |
@j15z I have started the AI code review. It will take a few minutes to complete. |
Summary
Expiration has not been released, so these changes define its initial timestamp contract. There are no production Expiration tables requiring a numeric-value migration.
Type of Change
Testing
4,056 regression tests and 38 cleanup tests pass, including 24 real PostgreSQL scenarios. A separate million-row run drained in 124 bounded passes and retained future/null sentinels. Native SQL projections agree with 892 offset, date-boundary, and precision samples. Type checking, lint, all 46 audits, and generated artifacts pass.
Checklist