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
refactor: replace command inputs and options by a dictionary-like high-level data abstraction #2180
Open
micalevisk
wants to merge
20
commits into
nestjs:master
Choose a base branch
from
micalevisk:refactor/proper-abstraction-to-command-inputs
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
refactor: replace command inputs and options by a dictionary-like high-level data abstraction #2180
micalevisk
wants to merge
20
commits into
nestjs:master
from
micalevisk:refactor/proper-abstraction-to-command-inputs
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
micalevisk
force-pushed
the
refactor/proper-abstraction-to-command-inputs
branch
from
July 16, 2023 21:45
6f77e3e
to
fcda32b
Compare
micalevisk
changed the title
refactor: replace command inputs and options by a dictionary-like data type abstraction
refactor: replace command inputs and options by a dictionary-like high-level data abstraction
Jul 16, 2023
I'd love to finally get rid of these confusing Input/Option abstractions - these are leftovers from the first version of the CLI 😄 |
micalevisk
force-pushed
the
refactor/proper-abstraction-to-command-inputs
branch
from
July 22, 2023 21:18
6c02d94
to
519ecbf
Compare
in order to try this version better, I've published this branch's version as |
micalevisk
force-pushed
the
refactor/proper-abstraction-to-command-inputs
branch
from
July 22, 2023 22:41
384326a
to
4507fbb
Compare
micalevisk
force-pushed
the
refactor/proper-abstraction-to-command-inputs
branch
from
July 22, 2023 22:43
4507fbb
to
519ecbf
Compare
- emit error on retrieve inputs with 'undefined' value - leave 'project' option optional as before - leave 'collection' optional as before - allow 'specFileSuffix' to be undefined - allow 'config' option to be undefined on build command
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.
PR Checklist
Please check if your PR fulfills the following requirements:
PR Type
What kind of change does this PR introduce?
What is the current behavior?
I notice that all operations on command's inputs and options are using
.find()
to search for the first input/option foundWhat is the new behavior?
replace the usage of
Input[]
from.command.ts
and.action.ts
files by a new abstraction calledCommandContext
which hides the complexity of registering and retrieving some input/operation in a command lifecycle.this change is intended to improve:
Instead of having a bunch of calls like
inputs.find((o) => o.name === 'foo')
we now have just oneinputs.resolveInput('foo')
, which is also slightly fast as it uses JSMap
under the hood. This make it even clear that we shouldn't be define the same input name more than one time. I didn't write a validation for this scenario for [micro]performance sake but we could easily introduce that if neededInstead of relying on type assertion and non-null assertions, we're using generics to make the code less error prone at compile time. The present solution doesn't differ that much from type assertions but there is a room to improve that easily by now
Does this PR introduce a breaking change?