Allow calling readField with ReadFieldOptions. #6306
Merged
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
As with
Cache.EvictOptions
in #6288, named options also make sense for theoptions.readField
function that we pass toread
andmerge
functions.While it was/is technically possible to specify field arguments by passing a
FieldNode
instead of astring
as the first argument toreadField
(as I was recently reminded while investigating #6278), I think it makes a whole lot more sense to letreadField
accept named options, so that we can more easily add fields likeargs
(and other optional fields, in the future):As with
cache.evict
,options.readField
can still be called with just a string, or a string and a foreignStoreObject | Reference
object, in cases when that information is sufficient. Once you get into more advanced territory, passing named options is a great way to limit code complexity.