Conversation
Signed-off-by: Henry Schreiner <[email protected]>
Member
|
Looks good to me. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
This is an alternative to (close #152). This reduces nesting. This also includes one followup, supporting a URI for each array, instead of requiring arrays to be stacked into N+1 dimensions.
This modifies the schema to keep the types more consistent. When implementing it, I have to have if statements around this portion; it would be simpler if every storage had the same structure.
Now they all are structured as
storage/<fields>, instead ofstorage/datasometimes containing fields and sometimes not.This is a change to the schema, so I'd like sign-offs from @HDembinski and @jpivarski.