-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 70
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
fix!: make actions types pub(crate) instead of pub #405
Conversation
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #405 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 78.34% 78.38% +0.04%
==========================================
Files 49 49
Lines 10282 10280 -2
Branches 10282 10280 -2
==========================================
+ Hits 8055 8058 +3
+ Misses 1775 1770 -5
Partials 452 452 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
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.
LGTM.
I do wish there were a way to attach visibility:make
to struct fields tho. Otherwise we have to decide between the fields being inaccessible to users under developer-visibility, or getting flagged as unreachable-public the rest of the time.
kernel/src/actions/mod.rs
Outdated
let mut visitor = MetadataVisitor::default(); | ||
data.extract(get_log_schema().project(&[METADATA_NAME])?, &mut visitor)?; | ||
Ok(visitor.metadata) | ||
} | ||
|
||
pub fn schema(&self) -> DeltaResult<StructType> { | ||
pub(crate) fn schema(&self) -> DeltaResult<StructType> { |
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.
Does this need to be public under developer-visibility? Or is the schema from snapshot enough?
(similar question for reader/writer feature lists in Protocol
below)
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.
Honestly I think this just comes down to semantics/what we want to expose? Do we want to make users understand Metadata
actions or should we just keep the schema as part of snapshot? Perhaps we just try to constrain for now (snapshot only) and open it back up if needed?
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.
SGTM!
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.
Looks good here
Need to see how much of this interface delta-rs is consuming - will report back but for now let's hold off |
@roeap can you chime in here? (regarding if delta-rs is consuming these? and perhaps then we should just put them all behind dev-visibility?) |
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #405 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 84.34% 84.35%
=======================================
Files 81 81
Lines 19233 19253 +20
Branches 19233 19253 +20
=======================================
+ Hits 16223 16241 +18
- Misses 2207 2209 +2
Partials 803 803 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
We don't want to just have all
action
types pub. This moves everything topub(crate)
but turns thempub
with dev-visibility.Breaking change: actions types are now all private (
Metadata
,Protocol
,Add
, etc.)