Jq rule composition - workflow for async getters #642
Conversation
|
|
brendanobra
force-pushed
the
jq-rule-composition
branch
from
7aedbab
to
e991606
Compare
…ource to pass in input params in workflow
bsenth200
changed the title
bsenth200
requested review from
satlead,
Vinodsathyaseelan,
SKumarMetro and
pahearn73
| "alias": "workflow", | ||
| "endpoint": "workflow", | ||
| "sources": [{ | ||
| "method": "static.rle" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
there is a typo here for static.rle does it still work is the test for invalid rule?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In this case (the unit test test RuleEngine::load_from_string_literal, which makinly tests that it can take a schema compliant string as input, and produce a rule engine from them), so it does not make any difference (but does look a little confusing now that i'm looking at it)
| @@ -197,6 +198,60 @@ impl JsonRpcApiRequest { | |||
| } | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| #[derive(Clone, Default, Debug)] | |||
| pub struct JsonRpcApiError { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Was this added because JsonRPCAPIResponse doesnt have message:String Just curious why we need this new entry?
#[derive(Debug, Clone, Serialize, Deserialize)]
pub struct JsonRpcApiResponse {
pub jsonrpc: String,
pub id: Option,
#[serde(skip_serializing_if = "Option::is_none")]
pub result: Option,
#[serde(skip_serializing_if = "Option::is_none")]
pub error: Option,
#[serde(skip_serializing)]
pub method: Option,
#[serde(skip_serializing)]
pub params: Option,
}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This (JsonApiError)was added to add stronger typing (as part of my original POC). This will (does) ultimately make code more understandable and enable proper encapsulation, higher type safety and ultimately better maintenance and unit testing in the future.
Minimum allowed line rate is |
What
What does this PR add or remove?
Why
Why are these changes needed?
How
How do these changes achieve the goal?
Test
How has this been tested? How can a reviewer test it?
Checklist