fix: query objects with static and persisted schemas #6715
+70
−2
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
|
@ZaymonFC here's a failing unit test that demonstrates the problem we ran into between Contacts app and Table. |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Background
I ran into an issue querying for objects with a statically-defined schema and a persisted schema in Contacts App.
Expected Behavior
I believe that all objects that match a
typenameshould be returned by the query, regardless of whether the object was created with a statically-defined schema or a persisted schema.The failing test demonstrates the expected behavior.
As an aside, it seems that we have entangled the ideas of "persisted" and "dynamic" schemas. A statically-defined schema should be able to be persisted without becoming dynamic. Persistence just implies I want to share objects and schemas with other peers without depending on them to have a statically-defined type definition in their codebase. It does not imply that I want to modify that schema at runtime (make it dynamic).