Make Timestamp and TimeDuration implement FilterableValue
#2695
Conversation
|
|
rafaelGuerreiro
changed the title
Timestamp and TimeDuration implement FilterableValue
|
This PR is currently marked as draft because I'll work on the C# backend, as well as the client SDK changes, if necessary. |
| @@ -89,6 +89,22 @@ pub enum TestF { | |||
| Baz(String), | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| #[spacetimedb::table( | |||
| name = test_g, | |||
| index(name = created_at_index, btree(columns = [name, created_at])), | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Add a test case for this index as well
| @@ -320,13 +320,16 @@ public static void insert_one_connection_id(ReducerContext ctx, ConnectionId a) | |||
| [SpacetimeDB.Table(Name = "one_timestamp", Public = true)] | |||
| public partial struct OneTimestamp | |||
| { | |||
| [SpacetimeDB.Index.BTree] | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Replicate the test in module-test-cs instead of sdk-test-cs
|
This one is going to be much more work to get merged than your previous PR. It's going to need:
|
|
May I ask why isn't this prioritized still? The backend module change should be separate from the client ones, if it takes so much to implement properly across SDKs. All it takes is merging my one-liner PR. This is currently a major blocker for me, requiring a crate override. Upd. Oh right, #3008. Wasn't mentioned here. Probably better to close this PR as a duplicate, too. |
|
Since this PR hasn't been updated in a while and is missing the client SDK pieces, closing this in favor of #3008. |
Description of Changes
Making
TimestampandTimeDurationimplementFilterableValue.This resolves #2650
API and ABI breaking changes
API change is additive in this case, I'm not marking this as unstable because the
FilterableValueimplementation is already stabilized.Expected complexity level and risk
Complexity 1.
Testing