> Shouldn't we just be converting changesets to use the same pagination logic
> as everything else, rather than copying parts of classic pagination into the
> controller just so we can pretend we got rid of it?
I agree.
> * Changesets have an upper bound on the number of elements. There can be a
> really large and growing number of traces etc. If you wanted to use numbered
> pages and go to page N, that N could be huge and you'll have to skip a huge
> number of record with `offset`. But for changeset elements N can't get higher
> than 10000 / page size.
>
> * Changesets don't change once closed. For a list of traces it doesn't make
> mach sense to be on page 1, 2, 5 etc because new traces are added and old
> ones are pushed off the page. Changeset elements are not going to be pushed
> of their page.
These are good reasons why the paginator **doesn't have to be** cursor-based,
but they aren't reasons why it **can't** be cursor-based. So I think the
simplification of only having one type of pagination is worthwhile.
> * Traces etc have a well-defined order represented by a single id, changeset
> elements don't.
Since we need a well-defined order for either approach to work, I think it's
best to get the order defined and working with the cursor-based pagination.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/pull/5205#issuecomment-2389052276
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
<openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/pull/5205/c2389052...@github.com>
_______________________________________________
rails-dev mailing list
rails-dev@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/rails-dev
