-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 301
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
chore: add json write #4744
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
chore: add json write #4744
Conversation
Important Review skippedAuto reviews are disabled on this repository. Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the You can disable this status message by setting the Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
Documentation and Community
|
@@ -410,7 +408,7 @@ fn extract_pipeline_value_by_content_type( | |||
|
|||
async fn ingest_logs_inner( | |||
state: LogHandlerRef, | |||
pipeline_name: String, | |||
pipeline_name: Option<String>, |
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.
Using just Option
to switch modes seems like a weak constraint, which can be unconsciously triggered by mistake. I was thinking of adding a bool flag to switch to 'auto-create' JSON mode by force, but that seems too heavy.
What do you think, @sunng87
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.
How about a enum:
PipelineChoice{
UserDefined(String)
Auto
}
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.
The question here is whether to add a parameter to specify the use of auto pipeline or to treat it as if it were used without the pipeline_name. or some other way to specify auto pipeline.
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 should add some integration tests if time permits.
if value_column_data_type.is_some_and(|t| t != schema_column_data_type) { | ||
row[index] = GreptimeValue { value_data: None }; |
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.
How about throwing an error here?
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.
I'm not sure which is better.
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #4744 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 84.89% 84.42% -0.48%
==========================================
Files 1116 1118 +2
Lines 201328 202658 +1330
==========================================
+ Hits 170922 171084 +162
- Misses 30406 31574 +1168 |
I hereby agree to the terms of the GreptimeDB CLA.
Refer to a related PR or issue link (optional)
What's changed and what's your intention?
Checklist