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

Datastore: expose 'reserveIds' at top level. #7111

Closed
Kazade opened this issue Jan 10, 2019 · 0 comments · Fixed by #8178
Closed

Datastore: expose 'reserveIds' at top level. #7111

Kazade opened this issue Jan 10, 2019 · 0 comments · Fixed by #8178
Assignees
Labels
api: datastore Issues related to the Datastore API. type: feature request ‘Nice-to-have’ improvement, new feature or different behavior or design.

Comments

@Kazade
Copy link

Kazade commented Jan 10, 2019

Environment details

  1. Datastore
  2. Fedora 28
  3. Python 3.6
  4. google-cloud-datastore 1.7.3

Steps to reproduce

The Client object doesn't expose the reserve_ids function (for preventing keys being accidentally reused by the auto-allocator), it does however expose the related allocate_ids (https://github.com/googleapis/google-cloud-python/blob/master/datastore/google/cloud/datastore/client.py#L487)

It would be great if this could be added, in the meantime I'm planning to use the private Client._datastore_api.reserve_ids method directly.

@tseaver tseaver changed the title The Datastore API doesn't expose reserveIds Datastore: expose 'reserveIds' at top level. Jan 11, 2019
@tseaver tseaver added type: feature request ‘Nice-to-have’ improvement, new feature or different behavior or design. api: datastore Issues related to the Datastore API. labels Jan 11, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
api: datastore Issues related to the Datastore API. type: feature request ‘Nice-to-have’ improvement, new feature or different behavior or design.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants