Skip to content
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

refactor: Deprecate Spanner extensions for protobuf values #272

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Sep 17, 2024

Conversation

SanjayVas
Copy link
Member

This is now handled by the Spanner client library.

@wfa-reviewable
Copy link

This change is Reviewable

Copy link

@Marco-Premier Marco-Premier left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Reviewed 10 of 10 files at r1, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @SanjayVas)


src/test/kotlin/org/wfanet/measurement/gcloud/spanner/StatementsTest.kt line 61 at r1 (raw file):

        "EnumColumn" to cardinality.number,
        "ProtoBytesColumn" to field.toGcloudByteArray(),
        "ProtoJsonColumn" to field.toJson(),

Always wondered why the , is added to the last element? Is it a common good practice?

Code quote:

,

Copy link
Member Author

@SanjayVas SanjayVas left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Reviewable status: 9 of 10 files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @Marco-Premier)


src/test/kotlin/org/wfanet/measurement/gcloud/spanner/StatementsTest.kt line 61 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, Marco-Premier (marcopremier) wrote…

Always wondered why the , is added to the last element? Is it a common good practice?

Yes, you often want to use trailing commas on multiline structures when supported by the language. It helps to avoid merge conflicts when adding items, for example. ktfmt ensures we're consistent with trailing comma usage.

Copy link
Member Author

@SanjayVas SanjayVas left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Reviewed 1 of 1 files at r2.
Dismissed @Marco-Premier from a discussion.
Reviewable status: :shipit: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @Marco-Premier)

This is now handled by the Spanner client library.
Copy link
Member Author

@SanjayVas SanjayVas left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Reviewed 4 of 4 files at r3.
Reviewable status: 8 of 10 files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @Marco-Premier)

Copy link
Member Author

@SanjayVas SanjayVas left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Reviewed 2 of 2 files at r4.
Reviewable status: :shipit: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @Marco-Premier)

@SanjayVas SanjayVas enabled auto-merge (squash) September 17, 2024 20:36
@SanjayVas SanjayVas merged commit 31939cf into main Sep 17, 2024
3 checks passed
@SanjayVas SanjayVas deleted the sanjayvas-spanner-proto branch September 17, 2024 20:37
SanjayVas added a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 18, 2024
The key behavioral difference is in the underlying Spanner type. While the serialization is the same, anything which inspects the Spanner type will behave differently.

This partially reverts #272.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants