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
[CHANGED] Hide deleted objects by default #1091
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
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
Oops, something went wrong.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Although we can break since it was indeed marked experimental, do we have to? Is the idea here to logically separate get options vs put or some others? You could still have the internal
objOpts
have sub-structs for individual type of options: put, get, getinfo, etc... but still have options that are ObjectOpt, and "get" would just use the "get" options, etc...But I agree that it would not prevent an user to pass say a "put" option to a "get" API, so in that sense it is better to have specific options, even if under the cover they could feed into a single internal option struct.
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.
Yes, that is the idea. It is not a great user experience to be able to pass options to methods which make no sense. I think having it as separate type per method or group of similar methods makes things easier to the user (no guessing about which options apply to which methods).
Functional options are tricky either way, as you usually don't have the IDE support to e.g. easily find all options applying to a method, plus there is a possibility of options collisions, so I try to make it less complicated when possible.