Skip to content

Delete optimistic locking POC #6327

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

Open
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

joviegas
Copy link
Contributor

@joviegas joviegas commented Aug 8, 2025

Motivation and Context

Modifications

Testing

Screenshots (if appropriate)

Types of changes

  • Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)

Checklist

  • I have read the CONTRIBUTING document
  • Local run of mvn install succeeds
  • My code follows the code style of this project
  • My change requires a change to the Javadoc documentation
  • I have updated the Javadoc documentation accordingly
  • I have added tests to cover my changes
  • All new and existing tests passed
  • I have added a changelog entry. Adding a new entry must be accomplished by running the scripts/new-change script and following the instructions. Commit the new file created by the script in .changes/next-release with your changes.
  • My change is to implement 1.11 parity feature and I have updated LaunchChangelog

License

  • I confirm that this pull request can be released under the Apache 2 license

@@ -37,14 +37,16 @@
*/
@SdkPublicApi
@ThreadSafe
public final class TransactDeleteItemEnhancedRequest {
public final class TransactDeleteItemEnhancedRequest<T> {
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This is backward incompatible change , just modified this for POC.
May be we can add a new class TransactDeleteCompleteItemEnhancedRequest or some good name and use this for specific case of optimistic delete case where we pass complete Items instead of just key.

@@ -531,7 +531,7 @@ public void generateTransactWriteItem_returnValuesOnConditionCheckFailure_genera

DeleteItemOperation<FakeItem> deleteItemOperation =
spy(DeleteItemOperation.create(TransactDeleteItemEnhancedRequest.builder()
.key(k -> k.partitionValue(fakeItem.getId()))
// .key(k -> k.partitionValue(fakeItem.getId()))
Copy link
Contributor Author

@joviegas joviegas Aug 8, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

POC only , we should not comment this out

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.

1 participant