Handle names via the Named rule
#1511
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
henriquemoody
force-pushed
the
core/named
branch
3 times, most recently
from
4b79cec to
15b70de
Compare
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #1511 +/- ##
============================================
- Coverage 96.54% 96.53% -0.01%
- Complexity 972 976 +4
============================================
Files 202 200 -2
Lines 2400 2398 -2
============================================
- Hits 2317 2315 -2
Misses 83 83 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
henriquemoody
force-pushed
the
core/named
branch
2 times, most recently
from
fd7dcff to
4db95a1
Compare
henriquemoody
commented
Dec 26, 2024
henriquemoody
force-pushed
the
core/named
branch
4 times, most recently
from
1a03bf7 to
0a5418d
Compare
henriquemoody
force-pushed
the
core/named
branch
from
0a5418d to
1026c00
Compare
henriquemoody
changed the title
Named rule
henriquemoody
force-pushed
the
core/named
branch
3 times, most recently
from
f9d6cb8 to
5db45f4
Compare
Because of how the validation engine works now [1], there's no reason to keep adding names to each rule. Instead, create a single rule that handles naming rules with a few other accessories. This change is not necessarily simple, but it shrinks the `Rule` interface, and it's more aligned with how the library works right now. Personally, I think this API is much more straightforward than the `setName()` method, as it's way more explicit about which rule we're naming. Because of this change, the behaviour changed slightly, but it's for the best. Because of this change, I managed to remove a lot of code, but unfortunately, it's quite a big-bang commit. It would be too complicated to make it atomic since names are an intrinsic part of the library. [1]: 238f2d5
henriquemoody
force-pushed
the
core/named
branch
from
5db45f4 to
a3c197f
Compare
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.
Because of how the validation engine works now 1, there's no reason to keep adding names to each rule. Instead, create a single rule that handles naming rules with a few other accessories. This change is not necessarily simple, but it shrinks the
Ruleinterface, and it's more aligned with how the library works right now.Personally, I think this API is much more straightforward than the
setName()method, as it's way more explicit about which rule we're naming. Because of this change, the behaviour changed slightly, but it's for the best.Because of this change, I managed to remove a lot of code, but unfortunately, it's quite a big-bang commit. It would be too complicated to make it atomic since names are an intrinsic part of the library.