-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 18
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
Typed search attributes in SDK #75
Conversation
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.
Definitely prefer this to first proposal 👍
sdk-typed-search-attributes.md
Outdated
* Each `SearchAttributeKey` has a `valueSet(value)` and a `valueUnset()` that return `SearchAttributeUpdate`s | ||
* So Java may look like `Workflow.updateSearchAttributes(MY_ATTR1.valueSet("foo"), MY_ATTR2.valueUnset())` | ||
* Ok that we call it "unset" instead of "delete"? | ||
* Ok that we call it `valueSet` and `valueDelete` instead of just `set` and `delete`? |
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 think these are fine but I'd just switch it around to be setValue
and unsetValue
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.
The reason I put the noun first is because the verb makes you think you're doing something instead of just building an update
I have made updates based on discussion. Namely, |
9d2c07f
to
473771c
Compare
473771c
to
7a1fb6f
Compare
Merging now that discussion is through. However, we're already learning things on the implementation side that are changing some of this (i.e. that we know the type of every key from the server payload). |
Rendered (until merged): https://github.com/cretz/temporal-proposals/blob/sdk-typed-search-attributes2/sdk-typed-search-attributes.md
This is a followup after discussion from #74 and supersedes that one.