Skip to content
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

Add method createImplicitOrderBy for ineqaulity filters #203

Closed
HemangChothani opened this issue Sep 24, 2020 · 2 comments
Closed

Add method createImplicitOrderBy for ineqaulity filters #203

HemangChothani opened this issue Sep 24, 2020 · 2 comments
Labels
api: firestore Issues related to the googleapis/python-firestore API. type: feature request ‘Nice-to-have’ improvement, new feature or different behavior or design.

Comments

@HemangChothani
Copy link
Contributor

Found this method in java and node which called in startAt, startAfter, endAt, endAfter functions but did't found similar in python, Also asked in this issue but at that time i misjudged the thing.

@crwilcox @tseaver Is that functionality needed for python?

@HemangChothani HemangChothani added the type: question Request for information or clarification. Not an issue. label Sep 24, 2020
@product-auto-label product-auto-label bot added the api: firestore Issues related to the googleapis/python-firestore API. label Sep 24, 2020
@tseaver
Copy link
Contributor

tseaver commented Dec 15, 2020

BaseQuery has methods start_at, start_after, end_at, end_before.

There is an explicit, documented requirement that all fields of cursors passed to those methods (or to the constructor) have matching entries in the query's order_by field. BaseQuery._normalize_cursor raises ValueError if that constratint is not met.

This issue would be a feature request to have _normalize_cursor synthesize the order_by bits, or else have the cursor-setting methods somehow implicitly set the order. I don't like the latter, as it requires guessing about ASCENDING / DESCENDING, and presumes that the order in which the methods are called should somehow dictate the sort order for the query.

@meredithslota meredithslota added type: feature request ‘Nice-to-have’ improvement, new feature or different behavior or design. and removed type: question Request for information or clarification. Not an issue. labels Oct 21, 2022
@meredithslota
Copy link
Contributor

Recategorizing as a feature request but it's not clear if this should actually be done or the relative priority.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
api: firestore Issues related to the googleapis/python-firestore API. type: feature request ‘Nice-to-have’ improvement, new feature or different behavior or design.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants