Missing stream commands

[urkle]

I am implementing a service that utilizes the streams in redis and am running into a number of items that are missing in redis-rs.

• XADD
  • NOMKSTREAM option
  • LIMIT option for MAXLEN
  • MINID option
• XAUTOCLAIM Add xautoclaim command support #1169
  • fully missing
• XCLAIM
  • LASTID option
• XGROUP CREATE
  • ENTRIESREAD option
• XGROUP CREATECONSUMER Add xgroup_createconsumer command support #1170
  • fully missing
• XGROUP SETID
  • ENTRIESREAD option
• XINFO STREAM
  • FULL option
  • FULL COUNT option
• XPENDING
  • IDLE arg
• XSETID
  • fully missing
• XTRIM
  • MINID
  • LIMIT count option

[nihohit]

Would you like to open PRs for these?

…

On Thu, 18 Apr 2024, 20:56 Edward Rudd, ***@***.***> wrote: I am implementing a service that utilizes the streams in redis and am running into a number of items that are missing in redis-rs. - XADD - NOMKSTREAM option - LIMIT option for MAXLEN - MINID option - XAUTOCLAIM - fully missing - XCLAIM - LASTID option - XGROUP CREATE - ENTRIESREAD option - XGROUP CREATECONSUMER - fully missing - XGROUP SETID - ENTRIESREAD option - XINFO STREAM - FULL option - FULL COUNT option - XPENDING - IDLE arg - XSETID - fully missing - XTRIM - MINID - LIMIT count option — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1153>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABDEBBR24FR3A7QZHA75JFDY6ACL7AVCNFSM6AAAAABGNYMUXKVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43ASLTON2WKOZSGI2TCMRVGE4TINI> . You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[urkle]

@nihohit I'm working on a local trait to get the ones I need implemented so I can get a PR together.

A few questions

1. should the options classes like StreamClaimOptions be #[non_exhaustive] (or not necessary since the internals are private). As I'll need to extend some of the like the StreamClaimOptions
2. can I create _options versions of some of these to make more concise variant? (e.g. xadd_options)

[nihohit]

1. StreamClaimOptions has only private fields, so I'm not sure how marking it as non_exhaustive would affect its behavior. AFAIK this attribute is only relevant for structs with (exclusively?) public fields.
2. sure, and since the fields are private, you can have the more verbose versions take the more concise versions as fields without breaking backwards compatibility.

[nihohit]

also, I'll save you time on common comments we give to PRs -

1. please open separate PRs for each command, or at least for each set of commands. If you'll open 1 huge PR, I'll ask to break it down.
2. please add comprehensive sync & async tests for each command.

Thanks for the will to contribute :)