Skip to content
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 initial transactWriteItem implementation [WIP] #129

Draft
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

tume
Copy link

@tume tume commented Apr 14, 2020

Started implementing transactWriteItem by mimicking batchWrite function with few modifications. At the moment it is a very crude start. I mainly wanted to get this out to see if this is even the right direction to pursue and maybe also get some advice on how to continue this if this is a valid way to go.

Does not handle ConditionCheck or rollback at all and didn't add any tests either :). Validation probably needs also improvement.

related to #98

@Streadz
Copy link

Streadz commented May 5, 2020

hi @tume! Just wanted to check in on this PR you made. Did you plan on still getting feedback from maintainers about your progress so far?

@mpangu
Copy link

mpangu commented Oct 22, 2020

@tume Are you planning to merge this change ?

@tume
Copy link
Author

tume commented Oct 23, 2020

I don't have write access to this repository and not actively using anymore this library... probably still needs some work before merging and requires some advice from the author.

@MrCheater
Copy link

@mhart Please, check the pull request

@mhart
Copy link
Collaborator

mhart commented Oct 23, 2020

Won't merge this without tests and some more fleshing out, but it looks like a good start!

@bwitt
Copy link
Contributor

bwitt commented Jan 13, 2021

I'm interested in seeing this in dynalite!

@mtimbs
Copy link

mtimbs commented Mar 2, 2022

Any update on this? What do we need to do to get this merged in?

@joffarex
Copy link

After all this time... Is there any news? @MrCheater @mhart could someone who knows the library take on this and work on implementation?

@ryanblock
Copy link
Member

Given that the author of this PR mentioned moving on from usage of this project, and @jpeterschmidt has an even deeper one baking at #143, I'm going to say we should let PR supersede this one. Please let me know if you disagree for whatever reason!

@ryanblock ryanblock marked this pull request as draft August 30, 2023 02:45
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

9 participants