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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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
Add support for ES index aliases / rollover to the dependency store (Resolves #2143) #2144
Add support for ES index aliases / rollover to the dependency store (Resolves #2143) #2144
Changes from all commits
82a1d09
a3cb643
6288680
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.
nit: I think we can just
return esDepStore.NewDependencyStore(...)
.I can see the intention here is to maintain consistency, though I think
CreateSpanReader/Writer
extract the function for reuse with itsArchive
equivalent. TheDependencyStore
doesn't support archiving AFAIK, so there doesn't seem to be much benefit of extracting the function for the cost of the additional indirection, unless you had other reasons?What do you think?
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.
While I understand your point and while I could argue there might arise the need to add archiving, I actually just would favor the consistency. As for performance, the compiler will optimize the additional call away and it's not like this is a hot path by any means.
In short, if you insist I will certainly change this, but I believe the code is just more approachable if similar things, as in creating readers for three types of stores, are not handled any differently.
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 can leave this as is, I'm not strongly attached to my suggestion. 😄