Skip to content
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

storage-plus: Improve in-code documentation of map primitives, in particular MultiIndex #407

Closed
hashedone opened this issue Sep 9, 2021 · 2 comments · Fixed by #443
Closed
Assignees
Labels
documentation Improvements or additions to documentation storage plus
Milestone

Comments

@hashedone
Copy link
Contributor

I found some storage-plus primitives not documented or poorly documented, and I think it should be improved. I know some of them are used around and those usages can be taken as an example (also including tests which are in pretty good shape there), but it takes way more time than reading doc comments (which IDEs are just bringing on hover), not mentioning generating doc with cargo.

Just as an example MultiIndex::new - there is no single word what is the second argument of the idx_fn (also no single word about first one, but it is kind of easier to deduce). Also there is really not good explanation how to use it, and why to include the second idx_fn argument as part of key.

@hashedone hashedone added documentation Improvements or additions to documentation storage plus labels Sep 9, 2021
@maurolacy
Copy link
Contributor

There's an explanation that addresses some of those points in the docs:

https://docs.cosmwasm.com/tutorials/storage/indexes/

Feel free to suggest updates / clarifications, and / or to extend on it.

@maurolacy
Copy link
Contributor

Perhaps an issue must be opened in the docs, so that those changes / suggestions can be easily tracked.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
documentation Improvements or additions to documentation storage plus
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

4 participants