Index keys consistency #568
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…e `UniqueIndex` Changes `MultiIndex` deserialized returned key for consistency
ueco-jb
approved these changes
Dec 6, 2021
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Closes #532.
This simplifies the key returned by
MultiIndex, so that it is consistent with theUniqueIndexkey.In principle the other approach is also possible: making
UniqueIndexreturn the same thanMultiIndex; see https://github.com/CosmWasm/cw-plus/tree/532-index-keys-consistency.But this approach is simpler: we just return a tuple with the associated primary key, and the value. Given that the index key is a combination of the data fields present in the value, this makes sense, both to avoid returning redundant data and for simplicity.
This PR also introduces a generic type for signaling the type for primary key deserialization, like in
UniqueIndex. So, it also closes (the first part of) #531.Overall, the end result is that both indices are now behaving more similarly. Both in their returned values and also in their specification.