-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 81
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Remove explicit field syncing from Python client #2716
Merged
Merged
Changes from 4 commits
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
50e1251
Removed explicit field syncing; open_table now fetches the table list…
SuperTails 941524c
Removed unused member variables
SuperTails c50b8db
Merge branch 'main' into py-client-open-tables
SuperTails b0d3918
open_table now opens the table by name directly
SuperTails 0cfc328
Fixed possible incorrect release when opening a table
SuperTails File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
So - I wonder if we want to actually add abstractions, or safety barriers, such that returning
faketable
here makes sense. (For example, we need to make sure that we don't try toclose()
w/ as/...
ticket.)Or may introduce
ref_table(...)
andfetch()
, such thatopen_table(...) == ref_table(...).fetch()
? (I think naming could be better.)Of particular interest is the interest in obtaining
ref_table(...).snapshot()
without needing a FetchTableOp against the server.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Or maybe, still have only
open_table
, but only execute theFetchTableOp
when the user calls into a method that needs FetchTableOp-provided data?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think having open_table() still makes more sense if we consider the typical use case of a client wants to get a reference to a table in the server for the only reason to perform some operations on it. So lazy fetching isn't too meaningful here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I also think it would be more intuitive that the "this table doesn't exist" error shows up when you try to open the table, rather than the first time you try to use it. If we wanted lazy fetching, I think a separate
open_lazy_table
method would make more sense (and that can go into a separate PR if we thought it was useful).