GODRIVER-2221 add unique, expires, and sparse to index options #794
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
matthewdale
approved these changes
Nov 8, 2021
kevinAlbs
changed the title
|
@kevinAlbs @matthewdale thanks! What's the standard policy / timeline on releasing new versions? |
|
@kwasnick This will be released with the next minor version (v1.8.0), which is tentatively scheduled to be released on Nov 16. |
gabbyasuncion
pushed a commit
to gabbyasuncion/mongo-go-driver
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 18, 2021
faem
pushed a commit
to kubedb/mongo-go-driver
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 17, 2022
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
What
Adding
Unique,ExpireAfterSeconds, andSparseto theIndexSpecificationtype returned fromcollection.ListSpecifications().Why
I've been working on some tooling that relies on fetching the current state of the indexes in a collection. It seems like just a pure oversight to not include these values in the returned
IndexSpecificationobject, seeing as they are available just fine frommongoshand the like.How
Just added the fields so that they will be appropriately unmarshalled from the bson response, and amended the existing "list specifications" unit test to verify that they are working.