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

Implement asynchronous support in RawValueWriter #2121

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Jul 8, 2021

Conversation

gathogojr
Copy link
Contributor

@gathogojr gathogojr commented Jul 6, 2021

Issues

This pull request is in partial fulfilment of issue #2019.

Description

Implement asynchronous support in RawValueWriter.

Checklist (Uncheck if it is not completed)

  • Test cases added
  • Build and test with one-click build and test script passed

Additional work necessary

If documentation update is needed, please add "Docs Needed" label to the issue and provide details about the required document change in the issue.

@gathogojr gathogojr force-pushed the feature/rawvaluewriter-async branch from 2fb561b to 7f9fbd0 Compare July 6, 2021 08:05
Comment on lines 197 to 216
string valueAsString;
if (value is ODataEnumValue enumValue)
{
return this.textWriter.WriteAsync(enumValue.Value);
}
else if (value is Geometry || value is Geography)
{
return TaskUtils.GetTaskForSynchronousOperation(
() => PrimitiveConverter.Instance.WriteJsonLight(value, jsonWriter));
}
else if (ODataRawValueUtils.TryConvertPrimitiveToString(value, out valueAsString))
{
return this.textWriter.WriteAsync(valueAsString);
}
else
{
// Value is neither enum nor primitive
return TaskUtils.GetFaultedTask(
new ODataException(Strings.ODataUtils_CannotConvertValueToRawString(value.GetType().FullName)));
}
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
string valueAsString;
if (value is ODataEnumValue enumValue)
{
return this.textWriter.WriteAsync(enumValue.Value);
}
else if (value is Geometry || value is Geography)
{
return TaskUtils.GetTaskForSynchronousOperation(
() => PrimitiveConverter.Instance.WriteJsonLight(value, jsonWriter));
}
else if (ODataRawValueUtils.TryConvertPrimitiveToString(value, out valueAsString))
{
return this.textWriter.WriteAsync(valueAsString);
}
else
{
// Value is neither enum nor primitive
return TaskUtils.GetFaultedTask(
new ODataException(Strings.ODataUtils_CannotConvertValueToRawString(value.GetType().FullName)));
}
if (value is ODataEnumValue enumValue)
{
return this.textWriter.WriteAsync(enumValue.Value);
}
if (value is Geometry || value is Geography)
{
return TaskUtils.GetTaskForSynchronousOperation(
() => PrimitiveConverter.Instance.WriteJsonLight(value, jsonWriter));
}
if (ODataRawValueUtils.TryConvertPrimitiveToString(value, out var valueAsString))
{
return this.textWriter.WriteAsync(valueAsString);
}
// Value is neither enum nor primitive
return TaskUtils.GetFaultedTask(
new ODataException(Strings.ODataUtils_CannotConvertValueToRawString(value.GetType().FullName)));

Copy link
Contributor

@KenitoInc KenitoInc left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

Copy link
Contributor

@habbes habbes left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should this class also implement IAsyncDisposable?

@gathogojr
Copy link
Contributor Author

gathogojr commented Jul 8, 2021

Should this class also implement IAsyncDisposable?

Not necessary. Dispose method is still called even in asynchronous scenarios so introducing DisposeAsync would be redundant since the implementation would be a mirror of Dispose, i.e.

this.textWriter.Dispose();
this.textWriter = null;

In this case Dispose does all we need to be done.

@gathogojr gathogojr force-pushed the feature/rawvaluewriter-async branch from 7f9fbd0 to e7d1458 Compare July 8, 2021 07:09
@pull-request-quantifier-deprecated

This PR has 98 quantified lines of changes. In general, a change size of upto 200 lines is ideal for the best PR experience!


Quantification details

Label      : Small
Size       : +93 -5
Percentile : 39.2%

Total files changed: 2

Change summary by file extension:
.cs : +93 -5

Change counts above are quantified counts, based on the PullRequestQuantifier customizations.

Why proper sizing of changes matters

Optimal pull request sizes drive a better predictable PR flow as they strike a
balance between between PR complexity and PR review overhead. PRs within the
optimal size (typical small, or medium sized PRs) mean:

  • Fast and predictable releases to production:
    • Optimal size changes are more likely to be reviewed faster with fewer
      iterations.
    • Similarity in low PR complexity drives similar review times.
  • Review quality is likely higher as complexity is lower:
    • Bugs are more likely to be detected.
    • Code inconsistencies are more likely to be detetcted.
  • Knowledge sharing is improved within the participants:
    • Small portions can be assimilated better.
  • Better engineering practices are exercised:
    • Solving big problems by dividing them in well contained, smaller problems.
    • Exercising separation of concerns within the code changes.

What can I do to optimize my changes

  • Use the PullRequestQuantifier to quantify your PR accurately
    • Create a context profile for your repo using the context generator
    • Exclude files that are not necessary to be reviewed or do not increase the review complexity. Example: Autogenerated code, docs, project IDE setting files, binaries, etc. Check out the Excluded section from your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
    • Understand your typical change complexity, drive towards the desired complexity by adjusting the label mapping in your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
    • Only use the labels that matter to you, see context specification to customize your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
  • Change your engineering behaviors
    • For PRs that fall outside of the desired spectrum, review the details and check if:
      • Your PR could be split in smaller, self-contained PRs instead
      • Your PR only solves one particular issue. (For example, don't refactor and code new features in the same PR).

How to interpret the change counts in git diff output

  • One line was added: +1 -0
  • One line was deleted: +0 -1
  • One line was modified: +1 -1 (git diff doesn't know about modified, it will
    interpret that line like one addition plus one deletion)
  • Change percentiles: Change characteristics (addition, deletion, modification)
    of this PR in relation to all other PRs within the repository.


Was this comment helpful? 👍  :ok_hand:  :thumbsdown: (Email)
Customize PullRequestQuantifier for this repository.

Copy link
Member

@g2mula g2mula left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

lgtm

@gathogojr gathogojr merged commit aaaf70b into OData:master Jul 8, 2021
@gathogojr gathogojr deleted the feature/rawvaluewriter-async branch July 8, 2021 08:10
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.

None yet

5 participants