json-api: "table scan"-style query, literal equality and record subsets #2826
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…eral-and-field-equality-query-json-api
…eral-and-field-equality-query-json-api
…oper model by operations
- false cases fail because outer layer still stubbed
…eld-equality-query-json-api
- deals with potential subst introduction as we make VP more abstract
S11001001
requested review from
remyhaemmerle-da,
stefanobaghino-da and
rautenrieth-da
…query-json-api' into 2778-literal-and-field-equality-query-json-api
…eld-equality-query-json-api
leo-da
reviewed
Sep 20, 2019
| JSON are also always interpreted with respect to some specified LF types | ||
| (e.g. template IDs). As #2777 implies, for example:: | ||
|
|
||
| {"%templates": [{"moduleName": "Foo", "entityName": "A"}, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just thinking about this... Maybe %templates should NOT be an Array? In this case if typecheck fails, it will be clear what Template it failed for. I bet we can improve the error reporting and maybe it already provides all required information, but it just looks strange to me that we may return totally unrelated types in one result set.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If it helps, you can think of the result type as a list of values of variant type, where the variant data constructor is a template ID rather than a string or int. If it does not help, well, we can reconsider elsewhere.
|
|
||
| A JSON object, when considered with a record type, is always interpreted | ||
| as a field equality query. Its type context is thus mutually exclusive | ||
| with `the forthcoming comparison queries |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can you add an example here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No, because
- this is a statement that no example of x exists, and
- to exemplify indirectly (e.g. by saying "this is always left, and this is always right", though I am skeptical of the value of such an inclusion) would require the full definition of comparison queries as meaningful context, which does not belong in this document until json-api: comparison query #2780.
…eral-and-field-equality-query-json-api
…query-json-api' into 2778-literal-and-field-equality-query-json-api
9 tasks
…eld-equality-query-json-api
gerolf-da
approved these changes
Sep 23, 2019
ledger-service/http-json/src/main/scala/com/digitalasset/http/query/ValuePredicate.scala
Show resolved
Hide resolved
ledger-service/http-json/src/main/scala/com/digitalasset/http/query/ValuePredicate.scala
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
…query-json-api' into 2778-literal-and-field-equality-query-json-api
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Fixes #2778 .
Pull Request Checklist
NOTE: CI is not automatically run on non-members pull-requests for security
reasons. The reviewer will have to comment with
/AzurePipelines runtotrigger the build.