Skip to content

Badly-defined behavior calling put reusing existing key. #16

@rainwoodman

Description

@rainwoodman

The current behavior seems to be replacing the value of the key, but increases total_bytes without retiring the existing item.

I do not think this behavior is well defined. It causes total_bytes and available_bytes to diverge, and eventually triggers #15.

How unique do we expect the keys to be?

Shall we raise an exception if the key same key is used twice, or shall we consistently retire the existing key/value when the same key is reused?

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    No labels
    No labels

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions