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

Support new object search #676

Merged
merged 8 commits into from
Jan 10, 2025
Merged

Support new object search #676

merged 8 commits into from
Jan 10, 2025

Conversation

cthulhu-rider
Copy link
Contributor

introduced in nspcc-dev/neofs-api#314

Just for the purity of coming changes. The `interface{}` declarations
became `any`.

Signed-off-by: Leonard Lyubich <leonard@morphbits.io>
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jan 9, 2025

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 54.32099% with 185 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 60.23%. Comparing base (5f693d2) to head (71d457a).
Report is 9 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
proto/object/types.pb.go 40.84% 42 Missing ⚠️
proto/container/service.pb.go 0.00% 29 Missing ⚠️
proto/object/service_grpc.pb.go 0.00% 25 Missing ⚠️
proto/netmap/service.pb.go 0.00% 12 Missing ⚠️
proto/session/types.pb.go 8.33% 11 Missing ⚠️
proto/netmap/types.pb.go 0.00% 10 Missing ⚠️
proto/refs/types.pb.go 0.00% 9 Missing ⚠️
proto/reputation/service.pb.go 0.00% 8 Missing ⚠️
proto/acl/types.pb.go 0.00% 7 Missing ⚠️
proto/reputation/types.pb.go 0.00% 5 Missing ⚠️
... and 14 more
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #676      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   60.45%   60.23%   -0.23%     
==========================================
  Files         165      165              
  Lines       22238    22683     +445     
==========================================
+ Hits        13444    13663     +219     
- Misses       8449     8674     +225     
- Partials      345      346       +1     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@cthulhu-rider cthulhu-rider force-pushed the feature/object-searchv2 branch from 71f42c3 to d5b0d83 Compare January 9, 2025 11:25
@cthulhu-rider cthulhu-rider marked this pull request as ready for review January 9, 2025 11:31
From nspcc-dev/neofs-api@e66b25d.
Brought container's meta information consistency attribute declaration
along several with doc improvements.

Signed-off-by: Leonard Lyubich <leonard@morphbits.io>
From nspcc-dev/neofs-api@d5777f8.
Importers of related generated code break, but the previous typedef is
not left: direct import is expected only in system code. It is fixed.

Functionality supporting the new feature on the API client will be
provided later.

Signed-off-by: Leonard Lyubich <leonard@morphbits.io>
Signed-off-by: Leonard Lyubich <leonard@morphbits.io>
Signed-off-by: Leonard Lyubich <leonard@morphbits.io>
Signed-off-by: Leonard Lyubich <leonard@morphbits.io>
Fix `intrange` linter remarks. Refs #552.

Signed-off-by: Leonard Lyubich <leonard@morphbits.io>
@cthulhu-rider cthulhu-rider force-pushed the feature/object-searchv2 branch from d5b0d83 to d068413 Compare January 9, 2025 11:33
In the original presentation, parameters' optionality followed from the
protocol. However, in practice, the opposite is expected:
 - some objects are filtered out;
 - attributes' values are in demand;
 - `for` loop mostly used for gathering, so cursor is always set;
 - count is rarely limited.

Signed-off-by: Leonard Lyubich <leonard@morphbits.io>
Copy link
Member

@carpawell carpawell left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why is the last commit not part of the original change?

@roman-khimov roman-khimov merged commit 74d6159 into master Jan 10, 2025
8 of 10 checks passed
@roman-khimov roman-khimov deleted the feature/object-searchv2 branch January 10, 2025 10:15
@cthulhu-rider
Copy link
Contributor Author

Why is the last commit not part of the original change?

original change followed already used approach on optionality of parameters, and was legit overall. #676 (comment) proposed API with better practical potential, so i decided to add it above

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.

3 participants