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

chore: add noop docs subcmd #4214

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Nov 28, 2024
Merged

chore: add noop docs subcmd #4214

merged 1 commit into from
Nov 28, 2024

Conversation

kostasrim
Copy link
Contributor

Fixes #4200

@kostasrim kostasrim self-assigned this Nov 28, 2024
@kostasrim kostasrim requested a review from chakaz November 28, 2024 09:11
@@ -2464,6 +2466,10 @@ void Service::Command(CmdArgList args, Transaction* tx, SinkReplyBuilder* builde
return;
}

if (subcmd == "DOCS" && sufficient_args) {
return builder->SendOk();
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't know about that. Perhaps some libraries will assume we don't support / have some commands if we return none?
Since this was introduced in Redis 7, perhaps we should keep it not implemented, or implement it properly?
@romange wdyt?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That's what Roman asked on the issue. To make it a noop. I was multitasking while waiting for a test to run and I patched this quickly

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

quoting Roman

we should make it a noop - and reply OK

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, I saw that reply :)
I'm not sure if Roman specifically considered the downside of perhaps breaking some clients, that's why I raised it

Copy link
Contributor Author

@kostasrim kostasrim Nov 28, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ohhhh ok ok. We did that with other commands in the past so I guess it's fine 🤷‍♂️

But +1 that you mentioned/asked

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I am not aware of clients that rely on it but in theory it can be used to provide dynamic support for commands.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Shall I close or merge this ? 🤷

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

merge it. let's learn about universe experimentally.

@kostasrim kostasrim requested a review from romange November 28, 2024 10:58
@kostasrim kostasrim merged commit 4aece00 into main Nov 28, 2024
9 checks passed
@kostasrim kostasrim deleted the kpr3 branch November 28, 2024 17:03
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Error in Logs: COMMAND DOCS failed with reason: syntax error
3 participants