revert: remove attribute locking #207
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
This needs to update the text in the README too. |
Signed-off-by: Henry Schreiner <henryschreineriii@gmail.com>
henryiii
force-pushed
the
henryiii/revert/nolocking
branch
2 times, most recently
from
5c84444
to
ffe1f9f
Compare
Signed-off-by: Henry Schreiner <henryschreineriii@gmail.com>
henryiii
force-pushed
the
henryiii/revert/nolocking
branch
from
ffe1f9f
to
288cd49
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
If we do want to remove attribute locking for non-dynamic fields, this is what it would look like. It can get in the way in a few valid cases (see #202). Maybe it's better to just leave it up to the backends to check the dynamic array? They probably never want our error to surface, anyway, as it's always a backend error to hit this.
Another option is we could make it smarter, allowing normalization for some fields. I just think the new license field might be tricky to validate if it's just a normalization? Or maybe not?
Or we can leave it.