Re: More new SQL/JSON item methods

On 2023-11-01 We 03:00, Jeevan Chalke wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 6:41 PM Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
> wrote:
>
>
> On 2023-10-19 Th 02:06, Jeevan Chalke wrote:
>> Thanks, Peter for the comments.
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 6, 2023 at 5:13 PM Peter Eisentraut
>> <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> wrote:
>>
>> On 29.08.23 09:05, Jeevan Chalke wrote:
>> > v1-0001-Implement-jsonpath-.bigint-.integer-and-.number-m.patch
>> >
>> > This commit implements jsonpath .bigint(), .integer(), and
>> .number()
>> > methods.  The JSON string or a numeric value is converted
>> to the
>> > bigint, int4, and numeric type representation.
>>
>> A comment that applies to all of these: These add various
>> keywords,
>> switch cases, documentation entries in some order.  Are we
>> happy with
>> that?  Should we try to reorder all of that for better
>> maintainability
>> or readability?
>>
>>
>> Yeah, that's the better suggestion. While implementing these
>> methods, I was confused about where to put them exactly and tried
>> keeping them in some logical place.
>> I think once these methods get in, we can have a follow-up patch
>> reorganizing all of these.
>
>
> I think it would be better to organize things how we want them
> before adding in more stuff.
>
>
> I have tried reordering all the jsonpath Operators and Methods
> consistently. With this patch, they all appear in the same order when
> together in the group.
>
> In some switch cases, they are still divided, like in
> flattenJsonPathParseItem(), where 2-arg, 1-arg, and no-arg cases are
> clubbed together. But I have tried to keep them in order in those
> subgroups.
>
> I will rebase my patches for this task on this patch, but before doing
> so, I  would like to get your views on this reordering.
>
>

This appears to be reasonable. Maybe we need to add a note in one or two
places about maintaining the consistency?

cheers

andrew

--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB:https://www.enterprisedb.com