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

Remove ValueBuffer from update pipeline #27898

Merged
1 commit merged into from
May 2, 2022
Merged

Conversation

roji
Copy link
Member

@roji roji commented Apr 27, 2022

RIP IValueBufferFactoryFactory 💀 💀 💀

Note: we can go further and have a single CreateGetValueExpression on RelationalDataReader, used by both the query and update pipelines: the code in ShaperProcessingExpressionVisitor.CreateGetValueExpression (query) and ModificationCommand.CreateGetValueExpression (update) is very similar, though there are some differences (namely _indexMapParameter, _readerColumns)

Closes #15914

@roji
Copy link
Member Author

roji commented May 2, 2022

@AndriySvyryd I've refactored things to cache the "reader get value" delegate on the model property.

  • The DetailedErrorsEnabled needs to be passed each time, since we have no access to it in the context of the relational extension method. Since DetailedErrorsEnabled is a singleton option, things should be fine and a given property instance should always receive the same value - but I think it's somewhat smelly. If you have a better suggestion let me know.
  • GetReaderFieldValue is now public; if we do want to DRY this code with the query pipeline version (in RelationalShapedQueryCompilingExpressionVisitor.ShaperProcessingExpressionVisitor), that would be a breaking change (though although technically public, this is very internal - not sure I'd be concerned about a breaking change here). I could also look at DRYing now (but would rather move on to other stuff).

@roji roji requested a review from AndriySvyryd May 2, 2022 15:10
@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented May 2, 2022

Hello @roji!

Because this pull request has the auto-merge label, I will be glad to assist with helping to merge this pull request once all check-in policies pass.

p.s. you can customize the way I help with merging this pull request, such as holding this pull request until a specific person approves. Simply @mention me (@msftbot) and give me an instruction to get started! Learn more here.

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented May 2, 2022

Apologies, while this PR appears ready to be merged, I've been configured to only merge when all checks have explicitly passed. The following integrations have not reported any progress on their checks and are blocking auto-merge:

  1. Azure Pipelines

These integrations are possibly never going to report a check, and unblocking auto-merge likely requires a human being to update my configuration to exempt these integrations from requiring a passing check.

Give feedback on this
From the bot dev team

We've tried to tune the bot such that it posts a comment like this only when auto-merge is blocked for exceptional, non-intuitive reasons. When the bot's auto-merge capability is properly configured, auto-merge should operate as you would intuitively expect and you should not see any spurious comments.

Please reach out to us at fabricbotservices@microsoft.com to provide feedback if you believe you're seeing this comment appear spuriously. Please note that we usually are unable to update your bot configuration on your team's behalf, but we're happy to help you identify your bot admin.

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented May 2, 2022

Apologies, while this PR appears ready to be merged, I've been configured to only merge when all checks have explicitly passed. The following integrations have not reported any progress on their checks and are blocking auto-merge:

  1. Azure Pipelines

These integrations are possibly never going to report a check, and unblocking auto-merge likely requires a human being to update my configuration to exempt these integrations from requiring a passing check.

Give feedback on this
From the bot dev team

We've tried to tune the bot such that it posts a comment like this only when auto-merge is blocked for exceptional, non-intuitive reasons. When the bot's auto-merge capability is properly configured, auto-merge should operate as you would intuitively expect and you should not see any spurious comments.

Please reach out to us at fabricbotservices@microsoft.com to provide feedback if you believe you're seeing this comment appear spuriously. Please note that we usually are unable to update your bot configuration on your team's behalf, but we're happy to help you identify your bot admin.

@ghost ghost merged commit 64eec9d into dotnet:main May 2, 2022
This pull request was closed.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Investigate IValueBufferFactoryFactory
2 participants