umgeher/leveled
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Releases Activity Actions

Remove knowledge of tuple length from ledger value

Browse source 
Nothing should now care about the current tuple length - and hence the tuple length may be increased (for example to add a max_mod_date)
This commit is contained in:
Martin Sumner 2018-10-29 20:24:54 +00:00
parent 671b6e7f99
commit baa4466923
3 changed files with 19 additions and 20 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

33
src/leveled_codec.erl
View file

@ -38,7 +38,7 @@
strip_to_statusonly/1,
strip_to_keyseqonly/1,
strip_to_seqnhashonly/1,
striphead_to_details/1,
striphead_to_v1details/1,
is_active/3,
endkey_passed/2,
key_dominates/2,
@ -167,36 +167,35 @@ to_lookup(Key) ->
%% Some helper functions to get a sub_components of the key/value
-spec strip_to_statusonly(ledger_kv()) -> ledger_status().
strip_to_statusonly({_, {_, St, _, _}}) -> St.
strip_to_statusonly({_, V}) -> element(2, V).
-spec strip_to_seqonly(ledger_kv()) -> non_neg_integer().
strip_to_seqonly({_, {SeqN, _, _, _}}) -> SeqN.
strip_to_seqonly({_, V}) -> element(1, V).
-spec strip_to_keyseqonly(ledger_kv()) -> {ledger_key(), integer()}.
strip_to_keyseqonly({LK, {SeqN, _, _, _}}) -> {LK, SeqN}.
strip_to_keyseqonly({LK, V}) -> {LK, element(1, V)}.
-spec strip_to_seqnhashonly(ledger_kv()) -> {integer(), segment_hash()}.
strip_to_seqnhashonly({_, {SeqN, _, MH, _}}) -> {SeqN, MH}.
strip_to_seqnhashonly({_, V}) -> {element(1, V), element(3, V)}.
-spec striphead_to_details(ledger_value()) -> ledger_value().
striphead_to_details({SeqN, St, MH, MD}) -> {SeqN, St, MH, MD}.
-spec striphead_to_v1details(ledger_value()) -> ledger_value().
striphead_to_v1details(V) ->
{element(1, V), element(2, V), element(3, V), element(4, V)}.
-spec key_dominates(ledger_kv(), ledger_kv()) ->
left_hand_first|right_hand_first|left_hand_dominant|right_hand_dominant.
%% @doc
%% When comparing two keys in the ledger need to find if one key comes before
%% the other, or if the match, which key is "better" and should be the winner
key_dominates(LeftKey, RightKey) ->
case {LeftKey, RightKey} of
{{LK, _LVAL}, {RK, _RVAL}} when LK < RK ->
left_hand_first;
{{LK, _LVAL}, {RK, _RVAL}} when RK < LK ->
right_hand_first;
{{LK, {LSN, _LST, _LMH, _LMD}}, {RK, {RSN, _RST, _RMH, _RMD}}}
when LK == RK, LSN >= RSN ->
key_dominates({LK, _LVAL}, {RK, _RVAL}) when LK < RK ->
left_hand_first;
key_dominates({LK, _LVAL}, {RK, _RVAL}) when RK < LK ->
right_hand_first;
key_dominates(LObj, RObj) ->
case strip_to_seqonly(LObj) >= strip_to_seqonly(RObj) of
true ->
left_hand_dominant;
{{LK, {LSN, _LST, _LMH, _LMD}}, {RK, {RSN, _RST, _RMH, _RMD}}}
when LK == RK, LSN < RSN ->
false ->
right_hand_dominant
end.