Skip to content

Conversation

@benedeki
Copy link
Contributor

@benedeki benedeki commented Dec 11, 2024

  • FlowReadeis now a simple class to just retrieve checkpoints of the identified flow.
  • Checkpoints are in the form of DTO without any extra functionality
  • Checkpoints are requested and returned in the form of pages with page offset and its size as parameters
  • ApiPaths moved from_Server_ to Model
  • Some minor renames in package names basic -> core
  • Fixes in License header years

Closes #247

Release notes:

  • FlowReader implemented to return the flow's checkpoints (requested and returned in a paginated form)

benedeki and others added 30 commits October 31, 2024 01:23
* created new module Info
* the new modul added to JaCoco and CI routines
* JaCoCo exclusion for model
* created Provider to query the data from server
* support for Future, IO, and ZIO based providers
* work in progress
@benedeki benedeki changed the base branch from feature/247-paging-in-reader to master February 21, 2025 11:39
@benedeki benedeki removed work in progress Work on this item is not yet finished (mainly intended for PRs) dependent The item depends on some other open item (Issue or PR) labels Feb 21, 2025
package za.co.absa.atum.reader.requests

object QueryParamNames {
val limit = "limit"
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, and also why not making them final?

Copy link
Collaborator

@lsulak lsulak left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Review finished, just few very very minor Qs / notes

* @param offset - offset of the page (starting position)
* @return - a page of checkpoints
*/
def getCheckpointsOfNamePage(checkpointName: String, pageSize: Int = 10, offset: Long = 0): F[RequestResult[PaginatedResponse[CheckpointWithPartitioningDTO]]] = {
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

why not to have just 1 function with checkpointName being Option[String] ?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I see it as inconvenient call.
And this way it clearly differentiate in the function name when only name-filtered entries are requested,
But can be unifies if seen as preferential.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I see it as: little convenience for users, little duplicity for developers. Less # of APIs & less code: better :D

But I don't mind, it's a matter of style, if you want to keep it I'm definitely okay with it

@benedeki benedeki merged commit fe1b66b into master Feb 28, 2025
8 of 9 checks passed
@benedeki benedeki deleted the feature/247-implement-basics-of-flowreader branch February 28, 2025 17:05
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Implement basics of FlowReader

3 participants