Skip to content

[CLN]: add CreateSegment type #4555

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

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

Conversation

codetheweb
Copy link
Contributor

Description of changes

Adds back the CreateSegment type that was removed in #4550

Test plan

How are these changes tested?

  • Tests pass locally with pytest for python, yarn test for js, cargo test for rust

Documentation Changes

Are all docstrings for user-facing APIs updated if required? Do we need to make documentation changes in the docs section?

n/a

@codetheweb codetheweb requested a review from HammadB May 15, 2025 17:15
Copy link
Contributor

Reintroduce CreateSegment Type for Segment Creation Operations

This PR adds back the CreateSegment type that was previously removed in PR #4550. The change replaces all usages of the Segment type in segment creation contexts with the more specifically-purposed CreateSegment type, allowing for clearer distinction between creation operations and existing segment representations.

Key Changes:
• Added CreateSegment struct to model/segment.go
• Added CreateSegmentToSegment helper function to convert between types
• Updated all segment creation code paths to use CreateSegment instead of Segment

Affected Areas:
• go/pkg/sysdb/coordinator/model
• go/pkg/sysdb/coordinator
• go/pkg/sysdb/grpc

This summary was automatically generated by @propel-code-bot

Copy link

Reviewer Checklist

Please leverage this checklist to ensure your code review is thorough before approving

Testing, Bugs, Errors, Logs, Documentation

  • Can you think of any use case in which the code does not behave as intended? Have they been tested?
  • Can you think of any inputs or external events that could break the code? Is user input validated and safe? Have they been tested?
  • If appropriate, are there adequate property based tests?
  • If appropriate, are there adequate unit tests?
  • Should any logging, debugging, tracing information be added or removed?
  • Are error messages user-friendly?
  • Have all documentation changes needed been made?
  • Have all non-obvious changes been commented?

System Compatibility

  • Are there any potential impacts on other parts of the system or backward compatibility?
  • Does this change intersect with any items on our roadmap, and if so, is there a plan for fitting them together?

Quality

  • Is this code of a unexpectedly high quality (Readability, Modularity, Intuitiveness)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant