Expose secondary instance CSV parsing #791
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Work towards getodk/collect#6350
This exposes the secondary instance CSV parsing code as
SecondaryInstanceCSVParserBuilderso that clients can parse secondary instances directly. It also brings in changes from v4.4.1 that makes the standard CSV parsing code inCsvExternalInstancemore memory efficient by streaming the CSV into memory rather than load it in one go.What has been done to verify that this works as intended?
This just exposes existing code, so running existing tests was enough.
Why is this the best possible solution? Were any other approaches considered?
Not a lot to discuss here! I think a builder feels like a pretty standard approach to sharing code like this with clients.
How does this change affect users? Describe intentional changes to behavior and behavior that could have accidentally been affected by code changes. In other words, what are the regression risks?
Very little risk here as, again, it's all existing code.