This repository was archived by the owner on Apr 16, 2022. It is now read-only.
Provide fallback cursor implementation #769
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
- Even though any value outside the set of "aggregate", "ona", or "opaque" would be invalid, we don't really need to fail when the cursor is not ona or aggregate, because an opaque cursor is able to handle any cursor value.
lognaturel
approved these changes
Aug 6, 2019
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Closes #768
What has been done to verify that this works as intended?
Since we can't test every aggregate compatible server, I've added automated tests covering the fallback option.
Why is this the best possible solution? Were any other approaches considered?
This is what should have been shipped in v1.16 in the first place. An opaque cursor implementation as a fallback for non-aggregate server is the most reasonable way to maintain compatibility with non aggregate servers.
Code with the solution was cherry picked from cims-bioko@91ca88a (thanks, @batkinson!)
How does this change affect users? Describe intentional changes to behavior and behavior that could have accidentally been affected by code changes. In other words, what are the regression risks?
Users using non-aggregate servers should be able to pull forms from their servers after this PR gets merged.
Does this change require updates to documentation? If so, please file an issue at https://github.com/opendatakit/docs/issues/new and include the link below.
Nope.