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

Rewrite OutputPlans, they're a mess #2123

Open
benjie opened this issue Jul 5, 2024 · 0 comments
Open

Rewrite OutputPlans, they're a mess #2123

benjie opened this issue Jul 5, 2024 · 0 comments

Comments

@benjie
Copy link
Member

benjie commented Jul 5, 2024

We can do this after V5 goes live, but with the new system of unaries and flags, the OutputPlan logic should be revised fully. In #2118 I rewrote from the eval'd JS to TS, but the resulting TS is an absolute mess because the eval'd code worked in a way that only eval'd JS could, so now we're passing many many things all around. In #2114 we then addressed the new way of checking for errors related to the output plan even if the bucket doesn't exist at runtime. There's also inefficiencies where we're checking the same things twice in different locations, and potentially there's also the risk of places where we don't check certain things at all. The aim should be that everything has a nice simple and straightforward flow, but right now the code reeks of layers upon layers of modification without a full refactor. But, due to the push to get V5 out, I'm going to have to delay this refactoring work.

@github-project-automation github-project-automation bot moved this to 🌳 Triage in V5.0.0 Jul 5, 2024
@benjie benjie removed this from V5.0.0 Jul 5, 2024
@github-project-automation github-project-automation bot moved this to 🌳 Triage in V5.0.0 Jul 5, 2024
@benjie benjie moved this from 🌳 Triage to 🦥 Sloth in V5.0.0 Jul 12, 2024
@benjie benjie removed this from V5.0.0 Aug 16, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant