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

THRIFT-3508: Map optional fields from thrift idl to optional fields i… #2386

Closed

Conversation

axeljaeger-arculus
Copy link
Contributor

…n TypeScript.

Client: node,js

Add ? behind optional members in classes if the field is marked as optional in thrift-idl.

Closes THRIFT-3508 and makes THRIFT-3227 probably obsolete as optional class members are supported since TypeScript 2.0

  • Did you create an Apache Jira ticket? (not required for trivial changes)
    No, I am hijacking the existing Ticket of THRIFT-3508 as it is exactly what I implemented.

  • If a ticket exists: Does your pull request title follow the pattern "THRIFT-NNNN: describe my issue"?
    Yes

  • Did you squash your changes to a single commit? (not required, but preferred)
    Yes

  • Did you do your best to avoid breaking changes? If one was needed, did you label the Jira ticket with "Breaking-Change"?
    Yes, I am not aware of braking changes, but was unable to to do the Test drive development approach from the provided documentation.

Copy link
Member

@emmenlau emmenlau left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks good to me.

@axeljaeger-arculus
Copy link
Contributor Author

So what are the next steps? Looks like CI is failing but not due to my code.

@Jens-G Jens-G closed this in 346c72c May 20, 2021
@Jens-G
Copy link
Member

Jens-G commented May 20, 2021

makes THRIFT-3227 probably obsolete

What do we do with that one?

@axeljaeger-arculus
Copy link
Contributor Author

After reading THRIFT-3227 again, I see that there might be actual usecases for the proposed split between classes and interfaces, although the original motivation is invalid now. So my suggestion is:

  • Add a comment there. I see this issue was already added as reference.
  • Leave it open. Maybe someone wants to work on it.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
3 participants