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

Make redis key creation more determinisitic (#380) #471

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Feb 13, 2020

Conversation

zhilingc
Copy link
Collaborator

What this PR does / why we need it:
Cherrypicking PR #380 into master since it got lost when moving to 0.4.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?:

NONE

@feast-ci-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: zhilingc

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

Ensure entities are sorted by the name
@davidheryanto
Copy link
Collaborator

/lgtm

@feast-ci-bot feast-ci-bot merged commit a7eb4dc into feast-dev:master Feb 13, 2020
khorshuheng pushed a commit to khorshuheng/feast that referenced this pull request Feb 14, 2020
…v#471)

* Make redis key creation more determinisitic (feast-dev#380)

* Add documentation to RedisKey in Redis.proto
Ensure entities are sorted by the name

Co-authored-by: David Heryanto <[email protected]>
@khorshuheng khorshuheng mentioned this pull request Feb 14, 2020
khorshuheng pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 14, 2020
* Make redis key creation more determinisitic (#380)

* Add documentation to RedisKey in Redis.proto
Ensure entities are sorted by the name

Co-authored-by: David Heryanto <[email protected]>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants