Thread

1. arpinum · 1790528924 · focus · HN ↗

   "46 at true 100% conformance". This is factually incorrect. Inspected their DynamoDB service and it comes nowhere close to implementing the full api.

   1. arpinum · 1790529441 · focus · HN ↗

      Here are some bugs: - `ADD m.a.c :inc` update expression wrote a literal top-level m.a.c attribute but didn't change the nested number. - TransactGetItems returned fields not requested. - update expression can update the same key multiple times.

      In total my conformance suite found 583 failures out of 1279 tests.

      1. equinumerous · 1790538586 · focus · HN ↗

         Wow! This is not production-ready at all. DynamoDB would be my main use case. I'll stick with DynamoDB local.

         1. arpinum · 1790543826 · focus · HN ↗

            Funny fact, DynamoDB local fails about 100 of my conformance tests. Mainly around error message formatting and text. Just be careful about parsing those.

            1. jamesfinlayson · 1790578361 · focus · HN ↗

               Interesting - I've only ever used it for unit tests and the only issue I had was (unsurprisingly) restoring from a back-up not being supported.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.