You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Previously, API response records were refactored to streamline related code interactions and to simplify testing.
It appears that our internal representation of the query graph could use a similar treatment. Currently, the query graph (as supplied by the query) is validated and transformed into first qNodes and qEdges, and then qXEdges (query execution edges) are created as a "wrapper" of sorts around qEdges. Given the actual lifetime of a qEdge and limited use outside of being part of a qXEdge, I think it makes sense to roll the two into simply just a qEdge.
Merging qEdge and qXEdge would simplify the structure and interface. Beyond this, however, refactoring the class along the lines of Record in order to allow freezing/unfreezing of an instance, where both the frozen and unfrozen data (and therefor class constructor) have the same structure and property names, would also dramatically simplify both testing and further development.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Previously, API response records were refactored to streamline related code interactions and to simplify testing.
It appears that our internal representation of the query graph could use a similar treatment. Currently, the query graph (as supplied by the query) is validated and transformed into first
qNodes
andqEdges
, and thenqXEdges
(query execution edges) are created as a "wrapper" of sorts aroundqEdges
. Given the actual lifetime of aqEdge
and limited use outside of being part of aqXEdge
, I think it makes sense to roll the two into simply just aqEdge
.Merging
qEdge
andqXEdge
would simplify the structure and interface. Beyond this, however, refactoring the class along the lines ofRecord
in order to allow freezing/unfreezing of an instance, where both the frozen and unfrozen data (and therefor class constructor) have the same structure and property names, would also dramatically simplify both testing and further development.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: