editoast: fix: diesel max params on big infra

[Khoyo]

Diesel only accepts 65535 parameters per query, so we need to chunk our insertions when importing big infras.

Fixes #2328.
Fixes #2301.

[Khoyo]

TODO:

• A test
• We need to refactor these methods, they pretty much do 11 time the same thing

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #2334 (ea818a0) into dev (0517a18) will decrease coverage by 0.73%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

❗ Current head ea818a0 differs from pull request most recent head ede0ae3. Consider uploading reports for the commit ede0ae3 to get more accurate results

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##                dev    #2334      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     80.15%   79.42%   -0.74%     
- Complexity     1650     1742      +92     
============================================
  Files           237      284      +47     
  Lines          7443     7942     +499     
  Branches        931      976      +45     
============================================
+ Hits           5966     6308     +342     
- Misses         1143     1279     +136     
- Partials        334      355      +21     

Flag	Coverage Δ
editoast	69.04% <ø> (-1.19%)	⬇️

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

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
editoast/src/schema/buffer_stop.rs	76.92% <ø> (-5.69%)	⬇️
editoast/src/schema/catenary.rs	100.00% <ø> (+5.88%)	⬆️
editoast/src/schema/detector.rs	76.92% <ø> (-5.69%)	⬇️
editoast/src/schema/operational_point.rs	76.92% <ø> (-5.69%)	⬇️
editoast/src/schema/railjson.rs	86.20% <ø> (ø)
editoast/src/schema/route.rs	100.00% <ø> (+5.88%)	⬆️
editoast/src/schema/signal.rs	76.92% <ø> (-5.69%)	⬇️
editoast/src/schema/speed_section.rs	72.72% <ø> (-8.23%)	⬇️
editoast/src/schema/switch.rs	76.92% <ø> (-5.69%)	⬇️
editoast/src/schema/switch_type.rs	100.00% <ø> (+5.88%)	⬆️
... and 66 more

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

[Khoyo]

About the refactor:

Why not a generic function? Mostly because diesel goes insane when you try to write it. If someone is able too, please do.

Why not raw SQL? Because AFAIK we don't have a good way to escape SQL in diesel (basically we must call the unsafe fn PQescapeLiteral()), and we'd loose the compile time type safety provided by diesel. Still, I'm open to it if people think a macro is too big a gun, I know I can reach for them to fast :)

Codecov is complaining, but does it really make sense to move the test into the macro or duplicate it 11 times ?

[flomonster]

Great PR!