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

[esutil.Client] Allow for passing routing values to Get, Delete, and MultiGet #85

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
May 28, 2021

Conversation

alexashley
Copy link
Contributor

Needed for rode/rode#87

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

Codecov Report

Merging #85 (5d11662) into main (52d9c8e) will increase coverage by 0.14%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main      #85      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   84.28%   84.42%   +0.14%     
==========================================
  Files           9        9              
  Lines         999     1008       +9     
==========================================
+ Hits          842      851       +9     
  Misses         93       93              
  Partials       64       64              
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
go/v1beta1/storage/esutil/types.go 69.23% <ø> (ø)
go/v1beta1/storage/esutil/client.go 82.22% <100.00%> (+0.61%) ⬆️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 52d9c8e...5d11662. Read the comment docs.

}

type MultiGetRequest struct {
Index string
DocumentIds []string
Items []*EsMultiGetItem
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

what happens if both Items and DocumentIds are specified? is that okay to do, or should we guard against it?

Copy link
Contributor Author

@alexashley alexashley May 28, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Seems fine. Couldn't find anything in the docs about it, but it looks like the behavior is to merge the results, in the order that the fields appear in the JSON

@alexashley alexashley merged commit 0bb1825 into main May 28, 2021
@alexashley alexashley deleted the routing branch May 28, 2021 19:09
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