-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 423
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
add TypedRecord and TypedRecordRef #1770
Merged
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
djc
reviewed
Aug 30, 2022
bluejekyll
force-pushed
the
new-typed-record
branch
from
September 2, 2022 16:35
e8d9408
to
290260c
Compare
bluejekyll
force-pushed
the
new-typed-record
branch
from
September 29, 2022 05:56
290260c
to
0aa22d2
Compare
bluejekyll
force-pushed
the
new-typed-record
branch
from
October 11, 2022 01:33
e3364b8
to
c4d04e8
Compare
bluejekyll
force-pushed
the
new-typed-record
branch
2 times, most recently
from
December 23, 2022 03:41
0a9a02d
to
1ddba3f
Compare
Ok, I'm really close to having this ready finally (after a long hiatus). There are a few places where things are now far simpler with this record type. |
bluejekyll
force-pushed
the
new-typed-record
branch
2 times, most recently
from
January 2, 2023 01:30
174b64f
to
8a510ac
Compare
@djc, I'd love to land this before cutting the next release. |
I'll try to review this early next week. |
bluejekyll
force-pushed
the
new-typed-record
branch
2 times, most recently
from
February 7, 2023 02:04
f942742
to
3a3e6ae
Compare
Ok, @djc, this should be clean to land. |
djc
reviewed
Feb 7, 2023
bluejekyll
commented
Feb 27, 2023
djc
reviewed
Feb 27, 2023
bluejekyll
force-pushed
the
new-typed-record
branch
2 times, most recently
from
March 5, 2023 00:30
d19f999
to
ba25a75
Compare
bluejekyll
force-pushed
the
new-typed-record
branch
from
March 11, 2023 13:44
ba25a75
to
869954d
Compare
bluejekyll
force-pushed
the
new-typed-record
branch
from
March 20, 2023 18:42
869954d
to
a1b9cf1
Compare
djc
approved these changes
Mar 21, 2023
Thanks! |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
@djc, here are the types I was suggesting. It's possible that TypedRecordRef is not necessary if we deprecate
Record
and replace all use cases withTypedRecord
. A different option instead of deprecating would be to do a type alias oftype Record = TypedRecord<RData>
. I'm not sure which would be better for downstream dependencies.If you like this, I can add everything necessary to make all
RecordData
be compatible with this, currently onlySOA
implementsRecordData
.