⏱️ Benchmark results

Comparing with 3d3f20f

• DefaultConcurrencyDFS-2 resources/s: 11,062 ⬇️ 4.49% decrease vs. 3d3f20f
• DefaultConcurrencyRoundRobin-2 resources/s: 12,322 ⬆️ 2.65% increase vs. 3d3f20f
• Glob-2 ns/op: 159.4 ⬆️ 1.69% increase vs. 3d3f20f
• TablesWithChildrenDFS-2 resources/s: 28,967 ⬇️ 3.70% decrease vs. 3d3f20f
• TablesWithChildrenRoundRobin-2 resources/s: 28,397 ⬆️ 4.28% increase vs. 3d3f20f
• TablesWithRateLimitingDFS-2 resources/s: 28.31 ⬇️ 0.14% decrease vs. 3d3f20f
• TablesWithRateLimitingRoundRobin-2 resources/s: 856.3 ⬆️ 1.21% increase vs. 3d3f20f
• BufferedScanner-2 ns/op: 10.01 ⬆️ 6.26% increase vs. 3d3f20f
• LogReader-2 ns/op: 30.85 ⬆️ 0.06% increase vs. 3d3f20f

String is a saved method in Go and usually means that it stringify the whole object. so let's say if we use fmt.Printf(spec) this will now print the version instead of the string.

Isn't that what overriding String() is for? To provide your own representation of how a struct will be printed?
It doesn't print only the version, it prints the name + version or name + path + version.

Can we just use VersionString method for this?

Using String() is useful for that exact reason. Formatting functions will use that implicitly. Also our logger has a Stringer function:
https://github.com/cloudquery/cloudquery/pull/6842/files#diff-ca3888a7ad618b67068e6b20ecb264fe87bb19554e6e8b62a13f8b5ce540f431R24

We can have a dedicated method, but that means we have to call it before passing the spec to any method that does formatting. That's especially clunky for arrays as you'll need to iterate over the array and call the method per item

String is a saved method in Go and usually means that it stringify the whole object. so let's say if we use fmt.Printf(spec) this will now print the version instead of the string.

Isn't that what overriding String() is for? To provide your own representation of how a struct will be printed? It doesn't print only the version, it prints the name + version or name + path + version.

Can we just use VersionString method for this?

Using String() is useful for that exact reason. Formatting functions will use that implicitly. Also our logger has a Stringer function: https://github.com/cloudquery/cloudquery/pull/6842/files#diff-ca3888a7ad618b67068e6b20ecb264fe87bb19554e6e8b62a13f8b5ce540f431R24

We can have a dedicated method, but that means we have to call it before passing the spec to any method that does formatting. That's especially clunky for arrays as you'll need to iterate over the array and call the method per item

String is a saved method in Go and usually means that it stringify the whole object. so let's say if we use fmt.Printf(spec) this will now print the version instead of the string.

Isn't that what overriding String() is for? To provide your own representation of how a struct will be printed? It doesn't print only the version, it prints the name + version or name + path + version.

Can we just use VersionString method for this?

Using String() is useful for that exact reason. Formatting functions will use that implicitly. Also our logger has a Stringer function: https://github.com/cloudquery/cloudquery/pull/6842/files#diff-ca3888a7ad618b67068e6b20ecb264fe87bb19554e6e8b62a13f8b5ce540f431R24

We can have a dedicated method, but that means we have to call it before passing the spec to any method that does formatting. That's especially clunky for arrays as you'll need to iterate over the array and call the method per item

I don't think this is what we want or at least for me it was quite confusing as I would assume String function will return some kind of json or yaml representation of the whole spec and not the pat@version. I would prefer to have an explicit Version or PathVersionString then something implicit that we will have hard time changing in case we do want String and then we will have to have a function name FullString (so prefer it the other way around)

I don't think this is what we want or at least for me it was quite confusing as I would assume String function will return some kind of json or yaml representation of the whole spec and not the pat@version. I would prefer to have an explicit Version or PathVersionString then something implicit that we will have hard time changing in case we do want String and then we will have to have a function name FullString (so prefer it the other way around)

Cool, got it. I'll make the function explicit

Done in 734f49c cc @yevgenypats