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

feat: add a support for transact items in dynago to do put or delete operations synchronously #5

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Nov 20, 2023

Conversation

omkar-till
Copy link
Contributor

@omkar-till omkar-till commented Nov 20, 2023

  • add a support for transact items in dynago to do put or delete operations synchronously

Tested : locally using integrated testing with local db

transaction_items.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
interface.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
… operations synchronously

Signed-off-by: omkar-till <omkar@tillpos.com.au>
Signed-off-by: omkar-till <omkar@tillpos.com.au>
Signed-off-by: omkar-till <omkar@tillpos.com.au>
Signed-off-by: omkar-till <omkar@tillpos.com.au>
@omkar-till omkar-till force-pushed the omkar/dynago/transactWriteItems branch from 5a557d4 to fc1a8c6 Compare November 20, 2023 04:49

This PR has 120 quantified lines of changes. In general, a change size of upto 200 lines is ideal for the best PR experience!


Quantification details

Label      : Medium
Size       : +120 -0
Percentile : 44%

Total files changed: 3

Change summary by file extension:
.go : +120 -0

Change counts above are quantified counts, based on the PullRequestQuantifier customizations.

Why proper sizing of changes matters

Optimal pull request sizes drive a better predictable PR flow as they strike a
balance between between PR complexity and PR review overhead. PRs within the
optimal size (typical small, or medium sized PRs) mean:

  • Fast and predictable releases to production:
    • Optimal size changes are more likely to be reviewed faster with fewer
      iterations.
    • Similarity in low PR complexity drives similar review times.
  • Review quality is likely higher as complexity is lower:
    • Bugs are more likely to be detected.
    • Code inconsistencies are more likely to be detected.
  • Knowledge sharing is improved within the participants:
    • Small portions can be assimilated better.
  • Better engineering practices are exercised:
    • Solving big problems by dividing them in well contained, smaller problems.
    • Exercising separation of concerns within the code changes.

What can I do to optimize my changes

  • Use the PullRequestQuantifier to quantify your PR accurately
    • Create a context profile for your repo using the context generator
    • Exclude files that are not necessary to be reviewed or do not increase the review complexity. Example: Autogenerated code, docs, project IDE setting files, binaries, etc. Check out the Excluded section from your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
    • Understand your typical change complexity, drive towards the desired complexity by adjusting the label mapping in your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
    • Only use the labels that matter to you, see context specification to customize your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
  • Change your engineering behaviors
    • For PRs that fall outside of the desired spectrum, review the details and check if:
      • Your PR could be split in smaller, self-contained PRs instead
      • Your PR only solves one particular issue. (For example, don't refactor and code new features in the same PR).

How to interpret the change counts in git diff output

  • One line was added: +1 -0
  • One line was deleted: +0 -1
  • One line was modified: +1 -1 (git diff doesn't know about modified, it will
    interpret that line like one addition plus one deletion)
  • Change percentiles: Change characteristics (addition, deletion, modification)
    of this PR in relation to all other PRs within the repository.


Was this comment helpful? 👍  :ok_hand:  :thumbsdown: (Email)
Customize PullRequestQuantifier for this repository.

@shidil shidil added this pull request to the merge queue Nov 20, 2023
@github-merge-queue github-merge-queue bot removed this pull request from the merge queue due to failed status checks Nov 20, 2023
@omkar-till omkar-till added this pull request to the merge queue Nov 20, 2023
@github-merge-queue github-merge-queue bot removed this pull request from the merge queue due to failed status checks Nov 20, 2023
@omkar-till omkar-till added this pull request to the merge queue Nov 20, 2023
@github-merge-queue github-merge-queue bot removed this pull request from the merge queue due to failed status checks Nov 20, 2023
@omkar-till omkar-till added this pull request to the merge queue Nov 20, 2023
Merged via the queue into main with commit bbd199d Nov 20, 2023
3 checks passed
@omkar-till omkar-till deleted the omkar/dynago/transactWriteItems branch November 20, 2023 05:08
@omkar-till omkar-till restored the omkar/dynago/transactWriteItems branch November 20, 2023 05:16
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants