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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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
feat(stdlib): add unflatten vrl function #993
feat(stdlib): add unflatten vrl function #993
Changes from 3 commits
d0d8c0a
96e4b39
0fdd397
12d8c3a
3ed2c73
07cc867
d3a7dd7
30702e1
6a0758d
57fcea7
234e1dd
a31c07d
97ef885
3bb2e2c
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.
We typically
expect
overunwrap
to provide more context about why the panic should never be hit.I think one potential way to refactor this that might avoid this unwrap/expect and avoid the early returns is something like:
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 tried to do that, but the problem is
values
is aVec
and therefore, we should convert it to a slice in order to pattern match against it, usingvalues[..]
, but then, at the first branch we would have the first element borrowed and we need it owned. The same with the second branch, we will have a borrowed slice of values, but not the owned values and we need owned values for thedo_unflatten_entries
function.Does this makes sense?
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.
Mmm, yeah, that makes sense. I wish there was a better way to model this that doesn't require the
expect
but I'm not seeing it.