Coercers with remote version fetch #606
Closed
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
alexaitken
reviewed
Aug 16, 2019
|
|
||
| def self.define_version(version) | ||
| @versions ||= {} | ||
| def coercion_mode=(mode) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
assignment of the coercer replaced the symbols it also allows for extension by implementing any coercer you want.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ah yes, sorry. That got lost in translation last night. I'm not sure what else someone would want to do though beyond always creating a new version and raising an error if a version is not in the known set. If we had another use case I think I'd be more open to using a coercer class like this.
Do you have an idea of any future needs that would require this extra flexibility and abstraction from the ApiVersion class?
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Just to make this a little easier to reason about. I branched off #600 and incorporated #603 to get a better sense of how they would look together. This PR isn't ready to go and I didn't port over any tests yet. I think I'm still leaning on the side of this might be a little over kill, but I wanted to see it all together anyway.
@alexaitken thoughts?