Tablestore Support ChatStore/KvStore/DocStore/IndexStore.

[xjtushilei]

Description

Tablestore Support ChatStore/KvStore/DocStore/IndexStore.

New Package?

Did I fill in the tool.llamahub section in the pyproject.toml and provide a detailed README.md for my new integration or package?

• Yes
• No

Version Bump?

Did I bump the version in the pyproject.toml file of the package I am updating? (Except for the llama-index-core package)

• Yes
• No

Type of Change

Please delete options that are not relevant.

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
• This change requires a documentation update

How Has This Been Tested?

Your pull-request will likely not be merged unless it is covered by some form of impactful unit testing.

• I added new unit tests to cover this change
• I believe this change is already covered by existing unit tests

Suggested Checklist:

• I have performed a self-review of my own code
• I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
• I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
• I have added Google Colab support for the newly added notebooks.
• My changes generate no new warnings
• I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
• New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
• I ran make format; make lint to appease the lint gods

[review-notebook-app]

Check out this pull request on 

See visual diffs & provide feedback on Jupyter Notebooks.

---

Powered by ReviewNB

[xjtushilei]

Except for the test coverage, all other checks have passed.

Here I have a question❓ For a database like ours, we cannot provide the account and password, and the test is skipped. So the coverage must not meet the standard. Is there any way to skip the test coverage directly? Or does it not matter, and the reviewer will handle this check separately?

[logan-markewich]

@xjtushilei I think in this case, you can use patching/mocks to mock the API requests, so that the tests can run in CICD?

[xjtushilei]

@xjtushilei I think in this case, you can use patching/mocks to mock the API requests, so that the tests can run in CICD?

@logan-markewich
Although mocking an in-memory database is very expensive, I encountered a new problem after trying it. Because the format of our python sdk interface is not so rigorous, mocking these interfaces causes the make lint test to fail.

In the end, I gave up, so I'll ask the Reviewer to handle it specially. Because I saw that other stores didn't even have tests, and only the PG database had relatively complete tests.