clair: Ancestry Builder #712
Conversation
KeyboardNerd
force-pushed
the
builder
branch
from
83fb6fc
to
9c73243
Compare
KeyboardNerd
force-pushed
the
builder
branch
4 times, most recently
from
1da5c4f
to
258f9f5
Compare
| if name == "" { | ||
| // TODO(sidac): we'll use the computed ancestry name in the future. | ||
| // During the transition, it still requires the user to use the correct | ||
| // ancestry name. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How big of a change do you think this will be? Why not just strip it out of the API right now?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Because when getting the ancestry, it requires a name.
We can either do:
return the computed name to the client
or
the client still gives us the name, but we use an extra table to keep the client given name to the internal ancestry name mapping.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we should get rid of names and make the computed name an implementation detail. Just let the customer provide the layer list.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
OR (which I prefer)
The user always query with a list of layer hashes in the request body. This just requires us to change the API a little bit.
KeyboardNerd
force-pushed
the
builder
branch
3 times, most recently
from
8e77355
to
2b8bcfa
Compare
- Add Ancestry builder - Change RPC to use the ancestry builder
KeyboardNerd
force-pushed
the
builder
branch
from
2b8bcfa
to
5bf8365
Compare
worker is removed, we have Ancestry builder! using builder pattern to construct an Ancestry.