Optional fields in proto IDL requests #3989
Merged
Conversation
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
vytautas-karpavicius
changed the title
yux0
approved these changes
Feb 19, 2021
yux0
pushed a commit
to yux0/cadence
that referenced
this pull request
May 4, 2021
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
What changed?
Added
google.protobuf.Int64Valuewrappers for some fields in proto IDLs.Why?
Those fields can have different behavior if not set.
inclusive_end_message_idfor DLQ operations. If not set, operate on all messages in the queue. Check herelast_retrieved_message_idforGetDomainReplicationMessagesRequest. If not set, infer last message id from ack level. Check herelast_processed_message_idforGetDomainReplicationMessagesRequest. If not set, do not update ack level Check hereHaving these wrappers allows having "not set" semantics.
An alternative solution would be to check for zero value. However message_id=0 can be valid in Cadence, as messages start counting from 0. The usage for such edge case is rather unlikely but still possible.
Additionally,
previous_started_event_idfields can be not set Check hereHow did you test it?
Potential risks