Skip to content

DATAMONGO-759 - Render group operation without non synthetic fields corr... #73

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

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

thomasdarimont
Copy link

...ectly.

Added isEmpty() method to ExposedFields to be able to test whether fields are going to be exposed or not. Adjusted the rendering of GroupOperations to generate null as group id (_id) when no fields are given.

* @return
*/
private int exposedFieldsCount() {
return originalFields.size() + syntheticFields.size();
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think we have to look for the original fields only. Otherwise we eventually render a {} again as soon as someone adds a synthetic field to the group operation. Could be that we have to find a better name for what's currently isEmpty().

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Are you sure? ExposesField combines "synthetic" as well as "original" fields hence a method like exposedFieldsCount should consider synthetic as well as original fields.

In addition to that I added a test case to verify that this is appropriate.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I am not arguing about the name. If that needs to be different, fine. Maybe the issue I see is more driven from the variable name used in GroupOperation. In this class we hold an instance of ExposedFields (which can hold both synthetic and non-synthetic fields) but only store synthetic fields in it. Without realizing the latter, simply calling ….isEmpty() creates the impression we check for whether there are no synthetic and non-synthetic fields present. So we're using a method here that semantically only makes sense, because we use the type in a certain way. I'd argue adding a hasNonSyntheticFields() method only checking the non-synthetic fields is semantically clearer - both on the type and on the client side using the type in a very special way.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I choose to use exposesNoNonSyntheticFields() instead of hasNonSyntheticFields() in order to stay consistent with the other methods. Changed the name of nonSyntheticFields in GroupOperation to idFields to make their purpose more clear.

@thomasdarimont
Copy link
Author

I changed isEmpty() to exposesNoFields() and added test cases to verify that a null group id is generated when no group-id fields are given but aggregation fields are present.

…orrectly.

Added isEmpty() method to ExposedFields to be able to test whether fields are going to be exposed or not. Adjusted the rendering of GroupOperations to generate null as group id (_id) when no fields are given.
thomasdarimont pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 30, 2013
GroupOperation gets the _id field now rendered as null if no group fields were added to the operation. Previously it was rendered as empty document (i.e. { }). While this was technically correct as well, we're now closer to what the MongoDB reference documentation describes.

Original pull request: #73.
thomasdarimont pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 30, 2013
GroupOperation gets the _id field now rendered as null if no group fields were added to the operation. Previously it was rendered as empty document (i.e. { }). While this was technically correct as well, we're now closer to what the MongoDB reference documentation describes.

Original pull request: #73.
@odrotbohm odrotbohm closed this Sep 30, 2013
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.

2 participants