Skip to content

Conversation

@adutra
Copy link
Contributor

@adutra adutra commented Aug 7, 2025

No description provided.

@eric-maynard
Copy link
Contributor

Why is this unused?

@adutra
Copy link
Contributor Author

adutra commented Aug 7, 2025

Why is this unused?

I have no idea. It was introduced in #1528, that's all I know.

@eric-maynard
Copy link
Contributor

I think that this should have been used in #1938; does pagination now ignore this flag?

@adutra
Copy link
Contributor Author

adutra commented Aug 7, 2025

I think that this should have been used in #1938; does pagination now ignore this flag?

@snazy do you know?

@github-project-automation github-project-automation bot moved this from PRs In Progress to Ready to merge in Basic Kanban Board Aug 12, 2025
@dimas-b
Copy link
Contributor

dimas-b commented Aug 12, 2025

Adding if/else on the paginated call paths looks a bit of an overkill to me. As currently implemented, IIRC, pagination is controlled by the client. If the client does not request a call to be paginated, the server will work as before #1938.

IMHO, the risk of breaking clients with current pagination code is low.

@eric-maynard
Copy link
Contributor

We have feature flags for tons of things controlled by the client -- like table location overlap, generic tables, drop-with-purge, policies, etc. This flag was put in place specifically to guard against regressions caused by the new code path introduced by pagination.

@dimas-b
Copy link
Contributor

dimas-b commented Aug 13, 2025

Fair point. I'll look into that presently.

@adutra
Copy link
Contributor Author

adutra commented Aug 19, 2025

Moving this to draft while @dimas-b looks into this issue.

@adutra adutra marked this pull request as draft August 19, 2025 11:37
dimas-b added a commit to dimas-b/polaris that referenced this pull request Aug 19, 2025
The enforcement of the LIST_PAGINATION_ENABLED flag was missed in apache#1938.
This change make the flag effective as discussed in apache#2296.

Note: this causes a change in the default Polaris behaviour (no pagination
by default) with respect to the previous state of `main`. However, there
is no behaviour change with respect to 1.0.0 or 1.0.1 as previous releases
did not have apache#1938.
@dimas-b
Copy link
Contributor

dimas-b commented Aug 19, 2025

Following up in #2401

@adutra
Copy link
Contributor Author

adutra commented Aug 20, 2025

Closing then, thanks @dimas-b !

@adutra adutra closed this Aug 20, 2025
@github-project-automation github-project-automation bot moved this from Ready to merge to Done in Basic Kanban Board Aug 20, 2025
@adutra adutra deleted the remove-list-pagination-feature branch August 20, 2025 13:33
dimas-b added a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 20, 2025
The enforcement of the LIST_PAGINATION_ENABLED flag was missed in #1938.
This change make the flag effective as discussed in #2296.

Note: this causes a change in the default Polaris behaviour (no pagination
by default) with respect to the previous state of `main`. However, there
is no behaviour change with respect to 1.0.0 or 1.0.1 as previous releases
did not have #1938.
dimas-b added a commit to dimas-b/polaris that referenced this pull request Aug 20, 2025
The enforcement of the LIST_PAGINATION_ENABLED flag was missed in apache#1938.
This change make the flag effective as discussed in apache#2296.

Note: this causes a change in the default Polaris behaviour (no pagination
by default) with respect to the previous state of `main`. However, there
is no behaviour change with respect to 1.0.0 or 1.0.1 as previous releases
did not have apache#1938.
dimas-b added a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 20, 2025
* feat: enforce LIST_PAGINATION_ENABLED

The enforcement of the LIST_PAGINATION_ENABLED flag was missed in #1938.
This change make the flag effective as discussed in #2296.

Note: this causes a change in the default Polaris behaviour (no pagination
by default) with respect to the previous state of `main`. However, there
is no behaviour change with respect to 1.0.0 or 1.0.1 as previous releases
did not have #1938.
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 this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants