-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 646
Add macro bindings for views #3429
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
Conversation
73ed5f9 to
6a8d021
Compare
2ecd24d to
8a11196
Compare
8a11196 to
6eebf6e
Compare
6eebf6e to
b52a38a
Compare
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.
As discussed out-of-band, it would be nice to have a test that the v9 validator rejects using a view as a scheduled function. Otherwise looks great!
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.
We discussed this after the meeting. It looks good. I think we can improve things a bit but we can do that later. Let's add the join example though.
Description of Changes
Adds the
#[view]procedural macro and module describers for views.Note, this deviates from the proposal in that views may only return
Vec<T>orOption<T>. They can't return an arbitrarySpacetimeType.API and ABI breaking changes
This technically isn't a breaking change, but it's worth mentioning that this patch refactors
ReducerInfoso that we can use it for views as well.Expected complexity level and risk
2
Testing