Note the ?foo? bar? output as the telltale sign of binary output rather than SUP.
$ super -version &&
super db -db mydb init &&
super db -db mydb create -use foo &&
echo '{foo: "bar"}' |
super db -db mydb load - && echo '{foo: "bar"}' | super db -db mydb -c "from foo" && rm -rf mydb
Version: v0.3.0-303-ge5ef10535
database created: file:///Users/phil/work/newbug/mydb
pool created: foo 3IvEhJHpSncKJNY355qlnMwGz3n
Switched to branch "main" on pool "foo"
(11/1) 13B 13B/s
3IvEhKSttpHBt5EhAZEOiGCJGXI committed
?foo? bar?
Details
Repro is with super commit e5ef105.
It seems like the problem surfaced with the merge of the changes in #7181, which fixed a different problem with default output format with super db (#7075), as the same repro steps produced SUP output at commit 44e0a65 just prior to the merge of #7181.
$ super -version &&
super db -db mydb init &&
super db -db mydb create -use foo &&
echo '{foo: "bar"}' |
super db -db mydb load - && echo '{foo: "bar"}' | super db -db mydb -c "from foo" && rm -rf mydb
Version: v0.3.0-302-g44e0a655a
database created: file:///Users/phil/work/newbug/mydb
pool created: foo 3IvFCI8ARivvRX9OHaK5Eoe6CAO
Switched to branch "main" on pool "foo"
(11/1) 13B 13B/s
3IvFCD7aES46CvDYYTTyTqJyXEM committed
{foo:"bar"}
Note the
?foo? bar?output as the telltale sign of binary output rather than SUP.Details
Repro is with super commit e5ef105.
It seems like the problem surfaced with the merge of the changes in #7181, which fixed a different problem with default output format with
super db(#7075), as the same repro steps produced SUP output at commit 44e0a65 just prior to the merge of #7181.