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

Improvement Request: Add more options to whereOperations #379

Open
Simon0x opened this issue Dec 7, 2024 · 2 comments · May be fixed by #413
Open

Improvement Request: Add more options to whereOperations #379

Simon0x opened this issue Dec 7, 2024 · 2 comments · May be fixed by #413

Comments

@Simon0x
Copy link

Simon0x commented Dec 7, 2024

Hello :)

First of all, thanks for the getWhere function, it really makes the experience a lot better.
However I would suggest to add the following options to the whereOperations in order to make it even better for developers as we are currently limited to the equal check only.

  • gt = greater than
  • gte = greater than or equal
  • lt = less than
  • lte = less than or equal
  • neq= not equal
  • in = in provided list
  • nin = not in provided list

This would help us massivly to improve the Blocksquare indexer.

Regards,
Simon

@DZakh
Copy link
Member

DZakh commented Dec 9, 2024

Thanks for the request. We had these operations in mind while designing the getWhere API; they're just not super simple to add, so we temporarily scoped them out. We definitely want to add them, but we prefer to start with the most requested ones. If you list operations you need the most, this will definitely help 🙏

@Simon0x
Copy link
Author

Simon0x commented Dec 9, 2024

@DZakh
The most critical one for us would be gt
Then we can simplify our code already while waiting for the rest :)

Generally I'd say the in and nin are less important.

@DZakh DZakh linked a pull request Jan 10, 2025 that will close this issue
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants