feat(storage): support soft delete timestamps #13728
Conversation
product-auto-label
bot
added
the
api: storage
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #13728 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 93.26% 93.27%
=======================================
Files 2229 2229
Lines 193104 193184 +80
=======================================
+ Hits 180105 180184 +79
- Misses 12999 13000 +1 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
| return *this; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| /// Returns true if the object has a soft delete timestamp. |
| return *this; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| /// @note THis is only intended for mocking. |
| @@ -505,6 +505,50 @@ class ObjectMetadata { | |||
| return *this; | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| /// Returns true if the object has a soft delete timestamp. | |||
| bool has_soft_delete_time() const { return soft_delete_time_.has_value(); } | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why not have one method that returns the optional<>?
Is it consistency with has_owner(), for example
There was a problem hiding this comment.
All other timestamps (and all other scalars really) return a default value when not set. If we had a time machine I would probably go back and do something different, but I am not sure it is worth changing the approach on only new fields.
Part of the work for #13575
This change is