-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 19
Do not allow create, update of stream without events_requested
#100
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
Conversation
FragLegs
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why can't a Receiver set up a stream without events? What if you wanted to create a stream that was dynamically populated with event types at a later point?
FragLegs
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why can't a Receiver set up a stream without events? What if you wanted to create a stream that was dynamically populated with event types at a later point?
After the stream is successfully created with relevant events, it makes sense that the requirements change and receiver updates existing What's the use case of stream creation for the empty Maybe we should only prevent updating the stream with empty Thoughts @FragLegs ? |
|
For an update I would assume a missing value means don’t change.A provided value means may be changed. PhilOn Aug 9, 2023, at 10:23 AM, Apoorva Deshpande ***@***.***> wrote:
Why can't a Receiver set up a stream without events? What if you wanted to create a stream that was dynamically populated with event types at a later point?
After the stream is successfully created with relevant events, it makes sense that the requirements change and receiver updates existing events_requested with a new array.
What's the use case of stream creation for the empty events_requested, what would be the status of such a stream.
Maybe we should only prevent updating the stream with empty events_requested, if stream creation with empty array is a special case? The receiver can dynamically update the existing stream with the new array of events, there is no need to allow setting it to empty. If the receiver wants to decommission the stream it could do that by the status APIs, rather than making events_requested as empty.
Thoughts @FragLegs ?
—Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>
|
|
@independentid in the current shape and form, a replace config call PUT with empty values will reset the config. ( it will not ignore empty values ) |
|
I don't understand what bad thing happens if the Receiver decides to set events_requested to an empty array. True, they won't get any events. But is it our job to police that? They also won't get any events if they never add a subject to the stream. Should we raise alarms in that case too? I think that the existing behavior is fine as is. |
+1 to keep the spec flexible but we should try to answer following things -
|
|
Following up on #117 |
Stream does not have any meaning if the
events_requestedis created, updated with an empty array. Fixing the text to advise against such update.Resolves #99