-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 447
DynamoDB new features implementation #170
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
Conversation
* New data types: BOOL, NULL, L, M * Untyped output of BOOL value is `true` or `false` * Untyped output of NULL value is `undefined` (not `null`, using `undefined` is more reasonable in Erlang) * Rewrite type spec of `in_attr_value()` * Remove Several uncommon type specs
|
Thanks. It will probably be a few days before I have a chance to take a look. |
|
Alright, take your time. |
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.
should these two use expression() instead of binary() for the key type?
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'm afraid not, neither of them is expression.
Attribute names act as placeholders for reserved, illegal or long names according to the document.
Attribute values are also placeholders. Obviously, typed or complex values couldn't be embed into expressions that easy.
|
Reviewed the code and it looks great. Before I merge I'm going to test using it in our service. It would be nice to update the doc examples to use the new attributes, since the old ones are deprecated. |
|
I'll update that a little later. |
DynamoDB new features implementation
|
Thank you - great to have this updated. |
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.
@smilerlee out of curiosity: why order is like {index_name(), delete} instead of more erlangish {delete, index_name()}?
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.
The prefer way may be {create, ...}, {update, ...} and {delete, ...}
But to keep a consistent style with the remaining exist code, I have chosen the {index_name(), delete} format.
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.
If there will be any future DynamoDB updates which couldn't fit into this exist style, I will consider to add a secondary format as you said, coexist with current one.
Thanks for your reply.
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.
@smilerlee thank you!
Most of the code clean-ups are made in Resort and rewrite some code to improve readability and flexibility, you might prefer compare one-commit-by-one-commit, sorry for any inconvenience.
I believe there wouldn't be any backward compatibility breaking.
Hope you like it.
Thanks.
Smiler