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

Add option for table prefix to DynamoDB #7598

Merged
merged 9 commits into from Oct 6, 2023

Conversation

maxfirman
Copy link
Contributor

@maxfirman maxfirman commented Oct 5, 2023

Closes #7595

@CLAassistant
Copy link

CLAassistant commented Oct 5, 2023

CLA assistant check
All committers have signed the CLA.

42,
ByteString.copyFrom(new byte[400 * 1024]))))
.isInstanceOf(ObjTooLargeException.class);
soft.assertThatThrownBy(
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Duplicated code?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Potentially, although I did not modify the body of that test at all so the duplication was there already.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

OK let's leave it, as it's not related to your changes 👍

adutra
adutra previously approved these changes Oct 6, 2023
Copy link
Contributor

@adutra adutra left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM, thank you for the contribution @maxfirman!

Copy link
Member

@dimas-b dimas-b left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks a lot for your contrubution @maxfirman ! Just a couple of minor nitpicks... I hope you do not mind.

@@ -40,9 +40,21 @@ public String getName() {
return DynamoDBBackendFactory.NAME;
}

@SuppressWarnings("ClassEscapesDefinedScope")
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

IntelliJ flags this annotation as redundant... Could you double check, please?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I've removed it. Although interestingly my IntilliJ complains when I remove the annotation.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

What does it say? My EAP 2 build is happy :)

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I guess it might be complaining about returning the package-private DynamoDBBackend type, but the interface defines the return value as Backend... I think the code is correct and IJ was overzealous :)

Copy link
Member

@dimas-b dimas-b Oct 6, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Correction: I was running my old IJ built for this review before and it did not give that warning. I switched to EAP 3 (just now) and it does indeed issue the warning. Having considered the code carefully, I think the warning is justified.

I also see some usages that rely on the more specific return type... so cleaning this up is probably beyond the scope of this PR. Let's not suppress the warning, though, as a reminder to revisit this.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We have the same issue in BigTable impl... we return Backend there, not BigTableBackend.

@dimas-b dimas-b merged commit 45379d2 into projectnessie:main Oct 6, 2023
17 checks passed
@maxfirman maxfirman deleted the dynamodb-table-prefix branch October 6, 2023 18:23
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Add table prefix option for DynamoDB
4 participants