Conversation
google-oss-bot
added
api: abtesting
api: analytics
api: appcheck
api: appdistribution
api: auth
api: core
api: crashlytics
api: database
api: dynamiclinks
api: firestore
api: functions
api: inappmessaging
Generated by 🚫 Danger |
google-oss-bot
added
api: analytics
api: appcheck
api: appdistribution
api: auth
api: core
api: crashlytics
api: database
api: dynamiclinks
api: functions
api: inappmessaging
wu-hui
left a comment
wu-hui
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Great work, I think we just need to port more integration tests from web (or Android).
| let functionName: String | ||
| let agrs: [Expr] | ||
|
|
||
| public init(_ functionName: String, _ agrs: [Expr]) { |
| // See the License for the specific language governing permissions and | ||
| // limitations under the License. | ||
|
|
||
| public class ArrayContains: BooleanExpr, @unchecked Sendable { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why do we need separate classes for these one? (CountAll, ArrayContains, etc.)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
These classes is used for convenient way to create expressions.
For ContAll and DocumentID, I am leaning towards keeping it since I don't want to introduce static method in Expr class.
Ascending("fieldname") is a syntax sugar.
But for ArrayContains("fieldname", "content"). I would like to remove it, since it doesn't save a lot work compared to Field("name").arraycontains("content").
| .collection(path: "/foo") | ||
| .where(eq(field("foo"), constant("bar"))) | ||
| .collection("/foo") | ||
| .where(Field("foo").eq(Constant("bar"))) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can we use == here for demonstration purposes?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would prefer to keep it consistent with API proposal. Since operator overload need to add extra method to the public API layer. It requires extra work to take it off when we release ppl.
| ] | ||
|
|
||
| @available(iOS 13, tvOS 13, macOS 10.15, macCatalyst 13, watchOS 7, *) | ||
| class PipelineIntegrationTests: FSTIntegrationTestCase { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we should port all integration tests from either web or Android against this dataset.
| // limitations under the License. | ||
|
|
||
| public class AggregateFunction: AggregateBridgeWrapper, @unchecked Sendable { | ||
| var bridge: AggregateFunctionBridge |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thank you for pointing this out! I have change these to non-mutating.
4 participants
No description provided.