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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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 AppendInvoke convenience wrapper #47
Add AppendInvoke convenience wrapper #47
Changes from all commits
b079d9b
435000f
384d888
af11747
e76f14f
4f14a36
bc56bb9
6a41b80
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
looks like these cases are exactly the same as
AppendInvoke
, should we instead share the cases? Then we could have the same cases be used across all variances:Invoke
function that returns the specified errorInvoker
that returns the specified errorCloser
AppendInvokeFn
if we add that methodThere was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Interesting idea, unfortunately this is not directly possible.
You would need to recreate the inputs for every case that would 'reuse' the input because the
into
modifies the original input and I'm not aware of any good solution how to handle this without introducing either weird side effects or rather complex test input generation.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
optional: I wonder if we should do a full file example instead, as it may be easier to see the print from a separate function that calls a function using
AppendInvoke
. It's a little easier to think of this as the result the caller sees IMOThere was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
you mean moving this to a new file only containing this very example and refactoring the anonymous function to normal functions?