Added new Types overloads #62
Conversation
khellang
force-pushed
the
types-overloads
branch
from
6cce715 to
f6031a6
Compare
| @@ -15,7 +14,7 @@ public class DomainTests | |||
| public DomainTests() | |||
| { | |||
| domainEntities = Types.InAssemblyOf<DomainClass>("Domain Entities", | |||
| types => types.Where(t=>t.Namespace.StartsWith("SampleApp.Domain"))); | |||
| type => type.Namespace.StartsWith("SampleApp.Domain")); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not sure if this is an issue, but this would stop us doing a select many. Can you think of a reason you would need to project from a type into multiple types?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not really. Maybe you could return all implemented interfaces or base classes? Anyway, the method is still there, it's just obsolete. I could remove the ObsoleteAttribute and just let it sit there with the rest 😄
khellang
force-pushed
the
types-overloads
branch
from
f6031a6 to
bba3a2a
Compare
|
I think I will add the public ctor back so you can do new Types(), just to save the breaking change. But nice change Did you want to put it back to public, or should I just merge and change after. Up to you |
khellang
force-pushed
the
types-overloads
branch
from
bba3a2a to
e6406a1
Compare
Done. There's still a breaking change with |
|
👍 |
|
Ah yeah, the breaking change with the setter on TypesToVerify. We could leave it as a public setter and .ToArray in the setter if it doesn't inherit from IList (which an array will when checked). Or we just bump the semver. |
|
It's up to you. Personally I prefer my types to be immutable, but if we want to prevent a breaking change, I don't have a problem making the setter public again. |
|
I think we should leave it this way. |
Here's a couple of (in my opinion) missing overloads for
Types.This also fixes half of #56
I went a bit overboard with breaking changes here. They are contained in the three last commits. If you want me to I can strip them out 😄