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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
feat: add recursiveDelete() to Firestore #622
feat: add recursiveDelete() to Firestore #622
Changes from 5 commits
246ce86
575d9ec
bfe333b
8b7d340
7862601
eb0ecd7
25f4eed
9b38613
61989c7
47876e8
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This code flow would be a bit cleaner if you called this method from all overloads. This will ensue that all calls go through the same callsite. If you take
parentPath
andcollectionId
as input here then you will also remove some duplication in RecursiveDelete (as you only need one constructor).There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
done.
RecursiveDelete
only has one constructor now.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This should technically also not be
get
, butis
doesn't work so you may want to keep it. I also wonder whether it should be "requires".There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
doesRequireConsistency
sounds weird. I'll keep it as is to match the node implementation which isrequireConsistency
.