Skip to content

refactor(NODE-5471): refactor crud operations to use async/await syntax #3777

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

Merged
merged 16 commits into from
Aug 2, 2023

Conversation

malikj2000
Copy link
Contributor

Description

converted all crud operations to use async/await syntax

What is changing?

all crud operations now inherit from Abstract/Command Operations instead of their callback counterparts
their execute methods also return promises

Is there new documentation needed for these changes?

None

What is the motivation for this change?

further converting the driver to async/await syntax

Release Highlight

Fill in title or leave empty for no highlight

Double check the following

  • Ran npm run check:lint script
  • Self-review completed using the steps outlined here
  • PR title follows the correct format: type(NODE-xxxx)[!]: description
    • Example: feat(NODE-1234)!: rewriting everything in coffeescript
  • Changes are covered by tests
  • New TODOs have a related JIRA ticket

@W-A-James W-A-James self-requested a review July 20, 2023 18:48
@W-A-James W-A-James self-assigned this Jul 20, 2023
@W-A-James W-A-James added the Primary Review In Review with primary reviewer, not yet ready for team's eyes label Jul 20, 2023
@malikj2000 malikj2000 requested a review from W-A-James July 26, 2023 14:11
Copy link
Contributor

@W-A-James W-A-James left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

CI is red

Copy link
Contributor

@W-A-James W-A-James left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Missed a couple more of those slight syntax cleanups.

One thing we should also get in this PR is the BulkWriteShimOperation. It still inherits from AbstractCallbackOperation.

Copy link
Contributor

@W-A-James W-A-James left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Identified the source of the CI redness

@malikj2000 malikj2000 requested a review from W-A-James July 28, 2023 18:53
W-A-James
W-A-James previously approved these changes Jul 28, 2023
@W-A-James W-A-James added Team Review Needs review from team and removed Primary Review In Review with primary reviewer, not yet ready for team's eyes labels Jul 28, 2023
@W-A-James W-A-James self-requested a review July 31, 2023 15:26
Copy link
Contributor

@W-A-James W-A-James left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Changes mostly look good, but you're getting a lot of red in CI around bulk write operations

@malikj2000 malikj2000 requested a review from W-A-James July 31, 2023 20:23
Copy link
Contributor

@W-A-James W-A-James left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Once you go through and make sure the existing suggestions about the nullish coalescing are fixed, then this should be done.

@malikj2000 malikj2000 requested a review from W-A-James August 1, 2023 18:23
nbbeeken
nbbeeken previously approved these changes Aug 1, 2023
Copy link
Contributor

@W-A-James W-A-James left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Still missing a couple

@W-A-James W-A-James merged commit 0c5c0b4 into main Aug 2, 2023
@W-A-James W-A-James deleted the NODE-5471 branch August 2, 2023 13:21
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Team Review Needs review from team
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants