-
Hi. I'm looking into adding support for a new aggregation type. While doing it, it occurred to me that it might be a good idea to validate the field values as well, according to what Druid requires. For example, the What do you think? Returning an error from the setter is a breaking change, so one alternative is storing errors in the struct, that could be returned via an |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Replies: 5 comments
-
Hello @MarcPer |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Yeah, I totally see this would break the chaining. That's why I was suggesting an alternative. I was thinking something along these lines: The |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Discussed on Slack.
We also agreed that we can let Druid manage the validations for now, if at some point there is more demand for such early error catching we could reconsider it. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
@MarcPer if you're fine with it, I let you close that issue. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Thanks for the discussion! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Discussed on Slack.
Implementation idea:
We also agreed that we can let Druid manage the validations for now, if at some point there is more demand for such early error catching we could reconsider it.