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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
chore | adding the support for querying multi interaction filters #203
chore | adding the support for querying multi interaction filters #203
Changes from 4 commits
342e110
c26bba5
4dd9616
f75f8fa
f09520e
c016ff5
7c26567
b64cb30
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
in general, be careful with the naming especial with fields since they can represent any part of the query. These, if I'm following correctly represent a map of entity types to a set of edge set fields (e.g.
outgoingEdges( neighborScope: "SERVICE")
would be one entry under the service key) rather than the fields that define an actual edge.I missed this earlier but since we group at the level of edge scope + edge type (e.g. outgoing services), that means if I had two edge sets of the same type with different filters, the filters would be ANDed. Is that desirable? If yes, can leave. If no, you'd want to avoid the grouping by type and create a new EdgeSetRequest for every edge set field and hold them as a collection rather than mapped by entity type.
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 don't see any use case for having different filters for the same set of edges. We had the same issue when we built the use case of a third-party application flow and decided to make the filters as AND across all edges defined. I think we can leave like this.
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.
renamed other arguments to be more meaningful
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.
Disagree - there's plenty of compelling use cases here. I want to get a set of by slow downstream services and a set of my high error rate downstream services, for example. It's not just about AND/OR - it's what the caller wants to separate e.g. downstream external APIs vs downstream internal APIs.
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 we might eventually want to change this, but can defer until we have a need.