-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 8
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
(cleanup) pam: Move model code into specific package #173
Conversation
Codecov ReportAttention:
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #173 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 83.31% 83.42% +0.10%
==========================================
Files 57 57
Lines 4562 4568 +6
==========================================
+ Hits 3801 3811 +10
+ Misses 590 587 -3
+ Partials 171 170 -1 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
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.
I like the idea, but the name adapter
does not feel right/complete. Can we think about a better one?
I'll start thinking about one and will report back as soon as I have some ideas...
@denisonbarbosa sure... That was the result of a Friday rambling shouting between me and @didrocks, so just an idea... Used also in #155. Check the MM logs, but happy to hear if you have better suggestions! |
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.
Some suggestions for you!
733a6a3
to
21f932c
Compare
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.
Once you fix the generator for the tests and quality check to pass, you can merge :)
21f932c
to
4fd8779
Compare
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.
Not fan about passing them as an unique struct to various functions TBH, especially in the new call where I would build the object from discrete args.
Well, thing is that in some places I'd need to pass |
Yes, but a struct, with is something like an optional struct is worse. At worst, you can say this is something small than a client and embed this struct in the client, but here, initiliazing with a Parameter is really not a pattern which is idiomatic |
I see, I'll revert this and handle it in the verbose way ;-). |
9c026b6
to
201ad41
Compare
Ok, moved also |
28fbafb
to
b1f25c4
Compare
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.
The tests are still failing. Rerequest once the tests pass.
Yeah, as always the last "cleanup" change broke things, I hope this last rebuild will be all green :) |
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.
Yeah... the annoying part is that this package does so much... We might need to take another look into it later, but it's not worth blocking this because of it.
Nice work!
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.
Looking good now!
So we can have it into a non-main package, leaving into main only the code that has to be there for library or binary generations.
We're not using this anywhere else, so we can just hide it inside an internal package.
b1f25c4
to
857f021
Compare
So we can have it into a non-main package, leaving into main only the code that has to be there for library or binary generations.
This is just a first iteration, let me know if we want to do further cleanups too.