[aesslinger]

Planning document and mockups for a new Compare & Diff feature. Looking for design feedback before implementation begins.

Ref #21

What's in this PR

No code changes — just a comprehensive planning doc at .github/planning/data-compare-feature.md with 5 SVG mockups.

Feature Summary

A unified comparison tool with two modes:

• Data Compare — row-level diffs between tables/query results, with sync script generation
• Schema Compare — structural DDL diffs (columns, indexes, FKs), with migration script generation

Both modes share the same UI shell (source/target selectors, summary bar, sync script panel) with a Data/Schema mode toggle.

Key Design Decisions (seeking feedback)

1. Architecture: New "compare" tab type in the Editor (not a separate page), with pop-out window support
2. Combined tool: Data + Schema as modes in one tab, not separate features
3. Safety: Dry-run by default, transaction wrapping, optional rollback script generation
4. Performance: Frontend comparison for MVP (<10K rows), Rust backend for Phase 4 (100K+)
5. Cross-driver: Same-driver comparisons first; cross-driver schema compare with type normalization in Phase 3

Open Questions (10)

Listed at the bottom of the doc — would especially appreciate input on:

• How to handle the 10K-100K row transition before Rust backend exists
• Dialect-specific DDL generation effort
• Keyboard shortcuts for diff navigation

Mockups

5 SVG mockups in .github/planning/mockups/:

1. Compare Setup Panel
2. Data Comparison Results (side-by-side)
3. Data Sync Script Preview
4. Schema Compare Results
5. Schema Migration Script Preview

[debba]

Hi @aesslinger

Here are my thoughts on the open questions:

1. Tab vs. Page: always a tab, with the pop-out window covering the "more screen real estate" case. This is basically what the Architecture Decision section already recommends, and a third dedicated-page mode would lose the sidebar and tab state persistence for little gain
2. Trigger points: yes to the Explorer right-click ("Compare with..."). It's the most natural entry point, since users almost always start from a concrete table. I would ship it in Phase 1 already, pre-filling the left side with the clicked table.
3. Comparison direction: fixed convention, left = source (reference), right = target (what the sync script will modify), plus a swap button to invert the sides. A configurable direction multiplies the test surface of the script generator and confuses users; swap gives the same flexibility without ambiguity.
4. Auto-refresh: always a manual snapshot, with a visible "Re-run" button and a timestamp of the last execution. Auto-refreshing a potentially expensive operation is risky for DB load, and a diff that changes while you're reviewing it is bad UX. Snapshot semantics are also the only model consistent with generating reliable sync scripts.
5. History: yes, but in Phase 3 as already planned. In Phase 1, persisting the tab configuration (which the tab model gives us almost for free) is enough. Named, re-runnable configs only become valuable once cross-connection compare exists, because that's when reconfiguring from scratch gets tedious.
6. Keyboard shortcuts: the real answer is that these should go through the existing keybindings registry (ShortcutDef in src/utils/keybindings.ts) with overridable: true, probably under a new "compare" category, so they show up in the Shortcuts settings tab and users can remap them like everything else. That makes the default choice low-stakes. As defaults I would go with F7 / Shift+F7 for next/previous diff, consistent with Monaco's DiffEditor which we plan to use in Phase 2 anyway.
7. Multi-table schema compare: one table at a time in Phase 2, whole schema in Phase 3 as planned. Multi-table is not just a loop over the single-table case: it needs a summary tree view, FK-aware ordering in migration scripts, and handling of tables that exist on one side only. Better to consolidate the single-table case first.
8. Dialect-specific DDL: targeted investment, full dialect-aware support only for the dialects we already ship (PostgreSQL, MySQL, SQLite), delegating DDL generation to the driver layer. SQLite needs special care since many ALTER TABLE operations don't exist there and require the create/copy/drop/rename pattern; in that case I would generate the script with an explicit warning comment rather than pretend the ALTER works. A "generic" cross-dialect DDL is the wrong path, it produces scripts that run nowhere.
9. 10K-100K rows: option (c), chunked client-side comparison with a progress bar and a cancel action, plus a warning threshold (~10K) informing the user before starting. Option (a) alone freezes the UI and makes the tool feel broken; (b) is an artificial limit that frustrates exactly the typical use case (mid-sized staging tables). The chunking logic is not throwaway work either: it prefigures the hash-first approach of later phases, and the Rust backend will inherit the same progress/cancellation model. Above a hard threshold (say 500K) I would show a clear error stating that support arrives with the native backend.
10. Right sidebar detail view: I would leave this open and evaluate it in the future, once the core compare is solid. If we do it, I would lean towards a bottom panel or an inline row expansion reusing the Monaco DiffEditor rather than the right sidebar, which feels too narrow for a two-column comparison.

This is my take, but it's not set in stone. I'm more than open to discussing any of these points.

FYI @NewtTheWolf

[afk-ankit]

Hey @aesslinger! 👋

@debba assigned me the Environment Diff feature request (#1292) and suggested I coordinate with you around the plan and mockups here.

I've gone through the initial proposal and would love to align on the implementation approach before getting started.

I was thinking of picking up the schema comparison work outlined in Phase 2 (weeks 4–5), focusing specifically on PostgreSQL as my first milestone:

• Comparing two PostgreSQL connections.
• Identifying differences in tables, columns, indexes, and constraints.
• Generating SQL scripts to reconcile the differences.
• Reviewing the generated SQL before execution.

A couple of things I'd love your input on:

• Does it make sense to pick up the Phase 2 schema comparison work first, scoped to PostgreSQL, or would you prefer that I follow the earlier data-comparison phases?
• Are there any existing abstractions or implementation decisions I should be aware of?

Happy to take ownership of this PostgreSQL-specific part and build on top of the existing work.

Looking forward to collaborating! 🚀

[aesslinger]

Hey @aesslinger! 👋

@debba assigned me the Environment Diff feature request (#1292) and suggested I coordinate with you around the plan and mockups here.

I've gone through the initial proposal and would love to align on the implementation approach before getting started.

I was thinking of picking up the schema comparison work outlined in Phase 2 (weeks 4–5), focusing specifically on PostgreSQL as my first milestone:

• Comparing two PostgreSQL connections.
• Identifying differences in tables, columns, indexes, and constraints.
• Generating SQL scripts to reconcile the differences.
• Reviewing the generated SQL before execution.

A couple of things I'd love your input on:

• Does it make sense to pick up the Phase 2 schema comparison work first, scoped to PostgreSQL, or would you prefer that I follow the earlier data-comparison phases?
• Are there any existing abstractions or implementation decisions I should be aware of?

Happy to take ownership of this PostgreSQL-specific part and build on top of the existing work.

Looking forward to collaborating! 🚀

Hi @afk-ankit - happy to collaborate. I wrote this all up awhile back. Let me take some time to refresh my thoughts here and make sure the plan is sound still. A lot has changed since then and I am way more aware of things in this project now. More soon.