-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 32
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
Interface refactor #1248
Interface refactor #1248
Conversation
5e79e88
to
6a4e650
Compare
Test Results 94 files 94 suites 3m 36s ⏱️ Results for commit 8f125ea. ♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results. |
3341559
to
7a9bf9f
Compare
d5a763b
to
541544a
Compare
I've tested the branch with restatedev/e2e#272 and restatedev/sdk-java#236 and e2e tests are passing! |
541544a
to
63016b4
Compare
Checked after the rebase, everything works |
Remove old_tests in schemas_impl
This refactor includes using latest tower version, remove manual CORS handling code, and reorganize the handler code. Also includes the first bits to support awakeables resolution.
63016b4
to
8f125ea
Compare
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.
Didn't manage to review this PR fully before it was merged. Will stop now and just post my minor comments I had so far.
let services = client.get_components().await?.into_body().await?.components; | ||
for svc in services { |
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.
nit: services -> components, svc -> component
for svc in deployment.components { | ||
let Some(latest_svc) = latest_services.get(&svc.name) else { |
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.
nit: Renaming (service -> component) seems to be not complete. Won't mention it anymore.
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.
I'm tracking this here #1225
Cell::new(&method.output_type), | ||
Cell::new(&handler.name), | ||
Cell::new(handler.input_description.as_deref().unwrap_or("any")), | ||
Cell::new(handler.output_description.as_deref().unwrap_or("any")), | ||
]); | ||
} | ||
table | ||
} | ||
|
||
pub fn create_service_methods_table_diff( |
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.
Should that be called create_component_handlers_table_diff
to be consistent in our terminology?
old_svc_methods: &[HandlerMetadata], | ||
new_svc_methods: &[HandlerMetadata], |
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.
old_component_handlers
?
# Encoding/Decoding | ||
bytes = { workspace = true } | ||
serde = { workspace = true } | ||
serde_with = { workspace = true } | ||
serde_json = { workspace = true } |
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.
nit: I think we are no longer trying to group dependencies logically because it increases the maintenance burden and there is sometimes no clear grouping. What we try to do is to group restate dependencies and others together.
@tillrohrmann will address your comments in my next PR when I finish to get rid of all the proto stuff. |
No description provided.