Skip to content

feat: add Delete & Exists for generic typed cache #75

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

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jul 11, 2025

Conversation

TeCHiScy
Copy link
Contributor

@TeCHiScy TeCHiScy commented Jul 10, 2025

The Delete and Exists function that splits key and id was missed in generic typed cache. As separator was encapsulated in *jetCache, it's not easy to properly get the combined key outside.

Thus, I propose to add the missing Delete & Exists for generic typed cache. Meanwhile, I unified a function combKey to generate the combined key, instead of wrting the logic multiple times.

@daoshenzzg daoshenzzg self-assigned this Jul 11, 2025
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jul 11, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 92.63%. Comparing base (7631f05) to head (418d8f4).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main      #75      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   92.61%   92.63%   +0.02%     
==========================================
  Files          19       19              
  Lines        1245     1249       +4     
==========================================
+ Hits         1153     1157       +4     
  Misses         66       66              
  Partials       26       26              
Flag Coverage Δ
unittests 92.63% <100.00%> (+0.02%) ⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@daoshenzzg
Copy link
Collaborator

daoshenzzg commented Jul 11, 2025

Thanks for your time! Should I create a new tag now?

@daoshenzzg daoshenzzg merged commit 97bfeb2 into mgtv-tech:main Jul 11, 2025
5 checks passed
@daoshenzzg daoshenzzg requested review from daoshenzzg and removed request for daoshenzzg July 11, 2025 01:25
@TeCHiScy
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thanks for your time! Should I create a new tag now?

yes, if convenient.

@daoshenzzg
Copy link
Collaborator

Thanks for your time! Should I create a new tag now?

yes, if convenient.

v1.2.6

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants