After updated libcouchbase cberl:append not work

[cclam0827]

After update libcouchbase from 2.4.1 to 2.4.4, I found that append function always return unknow error. Is somebody also have this issue?

In CentOS :
cberl:append(bucket,0, <<"test">>, <<"test">>).
{error,{unknown_error,58}}

In OSX:
cberl:append(bucket,0, <<"test">>, <<"test">>).
{error,unknown_error}

[wcummings]

58 is the detailed error code

  /**An option was passed to a command which is incompatible with other
     * options. This may happen if two fields are mutually exclusive */ \
    X(LCB_OPTIONS_CONFLICT, 0x3A, LCB_ERRTYPE_INPUT, \
      "The operation structure contains conflicting options")

I'll look into this

[wcummings]

Looks like the newer version is stricter, flags should not be set for append/prepend:

    case LCB_APPEND:
    case LCB_PREPEND:
        if (cmd->exptime || cmd->flags) {
            return LCB_OPTIONS_CONFLICT;
        }
        break;

[cclam0827]

Can we keep the api append/4?
like this

append(PoolPid, Cas, Key, Value) ->
   store(PoolPid, append, Key, Value, none, 0, 0).

or

append(PoolPid, Cas, Key, Value) ->
    append(PoolPid, Key, Value).
append(PoolPid, Key, Value) ->
    store(PoolPid, append, Key, Value, none, 0, 0).

[sjmackenzie]

Typically is bad form to breaking public APIs. Unless of course there is an
overriding consensus.

[wcummings]

It's easy enough to avoid in this case, but it will happen from time to time. I will add deprecated functions for append and prepend which accept an unused CAS value

[sjmackenzie]

Understood, rock and a hard place, never easy, though this project is
starting to become more mature with production code using it as a
dependency so public API stability is rather important indeed.

I must thank you for your amazing contribution, most appreciated :)

[hlieberman]

@sjmackenzie, it's my fault. I normally try to keep us pretty close to SemVer, and I didn't look closely at the patch set to see that there was a breaking change in there. We're not always going to be able to avoid them, but I'll try to make sure that they're not a surprise, at least.

[vincentdephily]

With that and returning {ok,CAS} and having a flexible options argument for storage functions, it would seem like a good idea to bundle as many pending API changes as desired into a 1.1 branch, and keep non-api-breaking patches for master in the meantime ? You can then decide how long the 1.0 branch should be supported.

[sjmackenzie]

my personal preference is to use the zeromq development 'contract'
inthat there is only the master branch on the canonical repository and
stable APIs dont change.APIs have a lifecycle, being annotated with
'experimental', 'stable', 'depricated' and 'legacy'. Having a
predictable stable API is a softwares greatest assert. Im terribly
sorry that you're building on couchbase' quicksand foundation and i'll
reuse the expression, are caught between a rock and a hard place. Have
a read of the ZeroMQ development methodology:
http://rfc.zeromq.org/spec:16

[sjmackenzie]

(forgive my mobile phone typos)

[wcummings]

I've long considered creating a "v2" API, while maintaining this one. Now might be the right time to do that, with the current API being 'stable' and the new API being 'experimental'. The biggest issue is that the current API doesn't provide for many ways to extend it w/o breaking compatibility.

I have a changeset for the deprecated append/prepend functions, so I will merge those in shortly and we can hold off and put the CAS changes into a new experimental branch.

Is this agreeable? @sjmackenzie @vincentdephily @hlieberman

[sjmackenzie]

Yes its a good way albeit using a different name. Names, if used in
the context of C4, stay around forever :)