New Case Study:See how Anthropic automated 95% of dependency reviews with Socket.Learn More →
electrodb
Advanced tools
electrodb - npm Package Versions
Changelog
[2.14.2] - 2024-07-07
Fixed
- Raised via Issue #196 and Issue #390, a breaking change was made to the project's dependency
@aws-sdk/lib-dynamodb. The change resulted in the errorError: Cannot find module '@aws-sdk/lib-dynamodb/dist-cjs/commands/utils'. This change updates ElectroDB's dependency version to the static version3.395.0, a version known to be compadible. Thank you github users @miyamonz, @kevinlonigro, @srodriki, @pablote, @sargisshahinyan, and @arpadgabor!
Changelog
[2.14.1] - 2024-05-17
Fixed
- Further fixes in service of Issue #366. A bug was discovered that the logic to validate the presence of an attribute was a simple falsey check instead of a check that the value was
undefined. This caused empty strings, zero values, and the boolean valuefalseto incorrectly be considered missing.
Changelog
[2.14.0] - 2024-04-29
Fixed/Changed
- Addresses Issue #366 with unexpected outcomes from index
conditionusage. Discussion inside the issue ticket revealed complexities associated with the implementation of theconditioncallback. Previously, a callback returningfalsewould simply not write the fields associated with an index on update. Through discussion with @sam3d and @nonken, it was revealed that this behavior could lead to inconsistencies between indexes and attributes. Furthermore, this behavior did not align with user expectations/intuitions, which expected afalseresponse to trigger the removal of the item from the index. To achieve this, it was discussed that the presence of aconditioncallback should add a new runtime validation check on all mutations to verify all member attributes of the index must be provided if a mutation operation affects one of the attributes. Previously ElectroDB would validate only that composite members of an index field (a partition or sort key) within an index were fully provided; now, when a condition callback is present, it will validate that all members from both fields are provided. If you are unable to update/patch all member attributes, because some are readOnly, you can also use the composite method on update and patch. More information and the discussion around the reasoning behind this change can be found here. Failure to provide all attributes will result in an Invalid Index Composite Attributes Provided Error.
Changelog
[2.13.0] - 2023-12-28
Added
- Adds new query execution option
countwhich allows you to specify a specific item count to return from a query. This is useful for cases where you must return a specific/consistent number of items from a query, a deceptively difficult task with DynamoDB and Single Table Design.
Changelog
[2.12.3] - 2023-12-26
Fixed
- Collection queries returned an
undefinedcursor (currently typed asstring | null) when using theraw:trueexecution option. Fixed to returnnullinstead ofundefined. - Removed superfluous and unused files,
./library-data.jsonandtest.csv, accidentally published in version2.12.2.
Changelog
[2.12.2] - 2023-12-18
Fixed
- Fixes bug where
scanappended invalid filters if some cases. In cases where attributes are used as keys or composite templates contain no prefixes thescanoperation would append invalid filters to parameters. This bug was identified by discord user @engi22, thank you!
Changelog
[2.12.0] - 2023-11-27
Added
- Adds support for nested usage of
anyandCustomAttributeTypeattribute types. Prior to this release,anyandCustomAttributeTypecould only be used with root attributes. This change adds support forCustomAttributeTypeto be used withmapattributes. - Adds new
conditionproperty on index definitions to prevent unnecessary GSI writes & hot partitions for certain data models. The providedconditioncallback will be invoked at query-time, passed all attributes set on that mutation, and if it returnsfalsethe index will not be written to your DynamoDB table. Addresses Issue #330.
Changelog
[2.11.0] - 2023-11-12
Added
- Adds new property
scopeto index definitions, allowing users to further isolate partition keys beyond justserviceparticipation. This implements an RFC that was thoughtfully put forward by @Sam3d in Issue #290. Thank you, Brooke for your contribution!