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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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
Go: Implement connection logic in lib.rs #119
Go: Implement connection logic in lib.rs #119
Changes from 13 commits
c0cb6fb
22bbf74
79343ff
2a92415
3278942
2b258e5
6ccc6c1
bdf9c19
4bd25cc
dc4df76
cd5c2da
055e74b
f23b01a
aa1fb08
2fe5bdd
6289bfb
53c8d7d
926e050
b9e61c8
70fb74b
db8959b
b32408c
478acd6
0e52d91
a02912f
7ea7bdd
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.
... or already closed
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.
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.
To ease marshalling it is better to have
Otherwise we have to deal with memory allocations/deallocations for that struct pointer.
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've already implemented the proper functions for freeing this struct and the string within. We can do this, but it goes against what's in the design doc and we'll have to make sure Aaron's work is aligned with this API change as well. I think we should discuss this first with the rest of the team before changing it.
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.
It is ok to adjust the design doc now
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.
Is it? @aaron-congo are you aware of these changes?
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 wasn't aware. We need the RedisErrorFFI and a mechanism to free it for the connection request, since we are not using a callback and C functions can only return a single result. If we need these things anyways, should we just use it in the failure callback as planned?
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.
What is the given string you are referring to here? Would it make sense to move the success callback sentence here to be above the SuccessCallback doc instead of the create_client doc?
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'm trying to remember where I copied this doc comment from originally. I think it was the C# implementation? I can still move it if you like.
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.
Do you know why this is added? On my connect branch it is not needed since protobuf is already listed on line 7. If you do
go mod tidy
does this get removed?