This page is not created by, affiliated with, or supported by Slack Technologies, Inc.
2016-09-21
Channels
- # alda (1)
- # bangalore-clj (1)
- # beginners (7)
- # boot (88)
- # carry (2)
- # cider (8)
- # cljs-dev (60)
- # cljsjs (2)
- # cljsrn (45)
- # clojure (255)
- # clojure-belgium (5)
- # clojure-boston (1)
- # clojure-dusseldorf (3)
- # clojure-greece (49)
- # clojure-italy (10)
- # clojure-russia (30)
- # clojure-spec (78)
- # clojure-uk (11)
- # clojurebridge (1)
- # clojurescript (80)
- # cursive (14)
- # datomic (33)
- # defnpodcast (4)
- # devcards (2)
- # dirac (15)
- # editors (23)
- # emacs (5)
- # events (11)
- # funcool (1)
- # hoplon (1)
- # juxt (1)
- # luminus (2)
- # mount (7)
- # off-topic (15)
- # om (152)
- # om-next (2)
- # onyx (17)
- # parinfer (1)
- # proton (38)
- # re-frame (35)
- # reagent (110)
- # rum (3)
- # spacemacs (3)
- # specter (51)
- # test-check (2)
- # testing (5)
- # untangled (234)
@aaelony Might've needed a lein clean
to fix that -- Clojure version didn't have any affect on it.
@lucasbradstreet @smw About adding a new task map parameter to support functions that take the entire batch of segments as an argument, I think @lucasbradstreet's idea was right the first time. Let's deprecate :onyx/bulk?
and introduce :onyx/batch-fn?
. This is a much better replacement so long as the return value of a fn with :batch-fn? true
is a vector than can either be a segment or a vector of segments. That'll cover it 1-1.
Cool, I think the side effect use case of :onyx/bulk?
is handled by just splitting to two tasks anyway (split to the batch-fn? task, and the task that it would have flowed on to after)
Hm? I don't follow that. I believe you'll get the same effect as bulk? by simply returning the original args.
Yeah, sorry, that’s true too
Cool, I agree that deprecating bulk is the way to go
Let's move forward with that then, unless someone has a better name than :onyx/batch-fn?
. We considered :onyx/batch?
, :onyx/coalesce
and :onyx-batched-args?
@michaeldrogalis I don’t like any of those, maybe :onyx/fn-batch?
, but probably not
Wasn't batch-fn? your idea? Heh.
I mean any other than batch-fn?
Oh. Yeah, Im alright with batch-fn?
Cool, done
We will need to update the User Guide and learn-onyx. There's a challenge using :bulk?
in there.
Didn’t think of that one
Good one
Ill take care of updating learn-onyx when it's ready to go.