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

future: have generic handler or service namespaces operation wrappers #1399

Open
codyoss opened this issue Sep 22, 2023 · 1 comment
Open
Labels
type: feature request ‘Nice-to-have’ improvement, new feature or different behavior or design.

Comments

@codyoss
Copy link
Member

codyoss commented Sep 22, 2023

Although this is unlikely as we have seen in some recent PRs collisions can happen. We should design around this in the future if we are going to take a v2. ExampleL: #1398

@codyoss codyoss added the type: feature request ‘Nice-to-have’ improvement, new feature or different behavior or design. label Sep 22, 2023
@noahdietz
Copy link
Collaborator

As way of helping improve the debugging/error reporting and reduce issues where there might not be one, we can actually share operation wrapper types when the following things are true between two RPCs with the same name:

  • the RPC simple names are the same e.g. CreateFoo
  • the response_type is the same
  • the metadata_type is the same

This will make the generation logic work for situations like #1398 while also enabling the generator to report specific collisions in the even that some, but not all of those conditions are true such that they result in a collision.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
type: feature request ‘Nice-to-have’ improvement, new feature or different behavior or design.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants