-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 123
Update new-backend docs #4573
Update new-backend docs #4573
Conversation
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.
Great job! Keep up the good work! ❤️
src/libs/elektra/kdb.c
Outdated
* **Note**: In general it is recommended to use a @p parentKey in the cascading namespace. | ||
* - `spec:/`, `dir:/`, `user:/` and `system:/` can be loaded via kdbGet(). | ||
* - `proc:/` keys can be loaded via kdbGet(), but are not persisted or cached. | ||
* - `default:/` keys can be returned by kdbGet() but they will always stem from a specification in `spec:/` keys |
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.
To not make a constraint to default:
keys added beforehand:
* - `default:/` keys can be returned by kdbGet() but they will always stem from a specification in `spec:/` keys | |
* - `default:/` keys can be inserted by kdbGet() but they will always stem from a specification in `spec:/` keys |
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.
To not make a constraint to
default:
keys added beforehand
I accepted the suggestion, but not sure what you wanted to say here. I thought we want default:/
keys to come from spec:/
only (see #4484 (comment)). Pre-existing default:/
keys will be removed, if the overlap with a loaded backend. Outside those backends, they will of course be kept, but that's the case for any other namespace too.
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 change is good then. But it would be good to have these two sentences in the docu, too.
/positions/set/commit = (="#0") | ||
/positions/set/rollback (="#0") | ||
``` | ||
<!-- TODO [new_backend]: finish README --> |
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.
👍 please
@markus2330 Didn't have time yet to create a README for Regarding the decisions here:
|
Would be good to have it!
What about the other reviews? Are they also incorporated here?
Excellent idea! |
Yes, everything from #4187 should be addressed. |
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.
Still a few little things open. @lawli3t can you take a look at the API docu, too?
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, many improvements. Decisions will be handled later anyway. Please rebase.
Co-authored-by: Maximilian Irlinger <maxi6594@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Markus Raab <markus2330@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Markus Raab <markus2330@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Markus Raab <markus2330@users.noreply.github.com>
26b68ca
to
21247d4
Compare
@markus2330 rebased, please merge when CI completes |
The build did not succeed. |
Please don't change the code in this already-reviewed documentation PR. |
It's my PR, please don't tell me what to do with it... I intentionally, split 85e8e19 and 3694bb8. The first one was a clear bug and I don't think there can be any objection to the fix. It even matches, what the docs already say. The second one does add new functionality, whether or not we want to add it is up for debate. But that's why I requested a new review. Well now I did... You commented faster than I could request the review... |
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.
Please split documentation and code in this PR. In the current form I cannot review it anymore.
3694bb8
to
85e8e19
Compare
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
85e8e19
to
ad1db9d
Compare
I have now also remove the minor fix for "kdbGet never returns 0", because for some unexplained reason the test didn't work for the FULL build. I believe you can now just merge this PR, when the CI is done. There are now changes since your last review. EDIT: I also created #4673 to track the issue |
jenkins build libelektra please |
Great work, thank you! 💞 |
Incorporates the reviews from #4187
Basics
(added as entry in
doc/news/_preparation_next_release.md
whichcontains
_(my name)_
)Please always add something to the release notes.
(first line should have
module: short statement
syntax)close #X
, are in the commit messages.doc/news/_preparation_next_release.md
scripts/dev/reformat-all
Checklist
(not in the PR description)
Review
Labels