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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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
Binary / row helpers #6096
Binary / row helpers #6096
Changes from 7 commits
ad3d611
24a622a
980ec14
6c2a980
3a646e5
c3b6b36
a941b94
c2f0c7d
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.
I got a little confused by
.expect("small")
. What does "small" mean in this context? Why not just.unwrap()
?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.
try_into_binary
fails when the data is too large to be indexed with a 32-bit integer, so this was meant to suggest that it was fine to unwrap here because the data is known to be small. I'll expand the message a bit!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.
More for my curiosity than anything but why
Arc::clone(&self.fields)
instead ofself.fields.clone()
?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.
Some people prefer this form because it makes it more explicit that we're just incrementing an arc and not cloning the underlying data. See the clippy lint docs for more: https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-clippy/master/index.html#/clone_on_ref_ptr
I've gotten used to this style, though I do not personally care deeply about it! This codebase seems to use a mix of both.