Document support #276
Document support #276
Conversation
This is a prerequisite for typed Query objects
These functions convert in memory objects to and from DyanomDB attribute value objects. Reference: http://docs.aws.amazon.com/amazondynamodb/latest/APIReference/API_AttributeValue.html
It wasn't testing what we wanted to test, since it was serializing the data into JSON before comparing. Using DeepEqual directly on the structs validates that they do have the expected types.
This is required for the typed query object, since structs cannot contain the members and functions with the same name.
Changes: - Store the table so it's not required to be passed to the query builder functions - Invoke ToDynamo/FromDynamo outside of the query builder since it's not part of the read path - Some WIP changes for GetDocument which were hard to separate (I'm being lazy)
|
@cbroglie I personally have been using a similar approach for my personal projects (except that I do |
|
@alimoeeny These changes have proven stable for us. What are your thoughts on merging to master? If you're ok to merge, I can update the README with some examples. |
|
I'll merge the latest master into my fork as well first, too. |
|
Thanks @cbroglie is it possible to do a new pull request? I think since there has been other changes since you started the pull request now it cannot be automatically merged. |
|
Yep, I'll merge master into my fork and resolve the conflicts. |
Conflicts: dynamodb/item.go dynamodb/query.go dynamodb/query_builder.go
|
@alimoeeny Merged latest into my fork. All tests passing. |
|
Thanks @cbroglie |
This change adds an API for storing and fetching plain JSON documents (either struct or
map[string]interface{}objects), fully abstracting away the details of how DynamoDB represents attribute values.As of now it only implements the PUT, GET, and DELETE operations, and has undergone only limited testing aside from unit tests. Using typed structs also incurs an extra JSON encode/decode, so performance optimizations may be necessary.
I wouldn't consider this ready to merge, but I'm proposing it now to get some feedback. Is there interest in such a feature?