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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
Add XContent chunking to SearchResponse #94736
Add XContent chunking to SearchResponse #94736
Changes from 1 commit
8770305
6bb572d
20fac00
54bac4a
dbe558e
2dc8dff
c28e81e
9b3e5b4
40b5258
5bb4694
c7bd1d8
cdae378
c590c8c
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There might be a nicer way to include an array of objects which themselves implement ChunkedToXContent but I couldn't find one
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is fine IMO but there's no need for the intermediate stream:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Similarly I feel there ought to be a nicer way of doing this but I couldn't find one...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think you're looking for this:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I see why moving these checks inside the Iterator helps enumerating everything in one concat call, but this way we create iterators the we already know will be a noop. Don't know if its worth pulling these out. maybe readability suffers then, leave it up to you to decide.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah I went back and forth on this a bit, but I think this is the most readable way of doing it, and creating no-op iterators is pretty low cost.