Skip to content

Add initial transactWriteItem implementation [WIP]#129

Draft
tume wants to merge 1 commit into
architect:mainfrom
tume:add_transactWriteItems
Draft

Add initial transactWriteItem implementation [WIP]#129
tume wants to merge 1 commit into
architect:mainfrom
tume:add_transactWriteItems

Conversation

@tume

@tume tume commented Apr 14, 2020

Copy link
Copy Markdown

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

Streadz commented May 5, 2020

Copy link
Copy Markdown

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

mpangu commented Oct 22, 2020

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@tume Are you planning to merge this change ?

@tume

tume commented Oct 23, 2020

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

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
Copy Markdown

@mhart Please, check the pull request

@mhart

mhart commented Oct 23, 2020

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

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

@bwitt

bwitt commented Jan 13, 2021

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

I'm interested in seeing this in dynalite!

@mtimbs

mtimbs commented Mar 2, 2022

Copy link
Copy Markdown

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

@joffarex

Copy link
Copy Markdown

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
Copy Markdown
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