Depends on D5035
In order to be able to handle multiple connections at the same time, we have to store a collection of clients in the rust state instead of having just one.
Here, I'm making the c++ calls to rust for the put client valid.
Details
Details
cd services yarn run-integration-tests backup
Diff Detail
Diff Detail
- Repository
- rCOMM Comm
- Lint
Lint Not Applicable - Unit
Tests Not Applicable
Event Timeline
Comment Actions
Can we avoid having to put an additional argument to every call? This is error-prone.
Comment Actions
I think so, I'm not sure if this is so much error-prone, why?
We have to specify what holder do we refer to. I don't know how else would we do that.
Comment Actions
If all the functions share the same context, we can create a struct and make functions methods of this struct (described in D5036).
I'm not sure if this is so much error-prone, why?
In each function we need to remember to pass exactly the same string. The problem is that we accept any string as a type, so the only way to make sure we use the same value is by careful reading, which isn't maintainable. If the solution with struct is a hard one, we can consider keeping this approach, but maybe there are other ways of achieving that.
Comment Actions
I see your point. I would go with a follow-up for this as it looks uncertain and it may be quite a lot of work/refactoring.
https://linear.app/comm/issue/ENG-1759/avoid-specifying-context-for-each-rust-function
| services/backup/src/Reactors/server/AddAttachmentsUtility.cpp | ||
|---|---|---|
| 72 ↗ | (On Diff #16235) | Is a cstring a recommended type to handle strings when using cxx? |
| services/backup/src/Reactors/server/AddAttachmentsUtility.cpp | ||
|---|---|---|
| 72 ↗ | (On Diff #16235) | It would be a lot more efficient if this diff was updated instead of creating a follow-up |