Added Dataloader.has_source? so registered sources can be checked #28
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
| def has_source?(%{sources: sources}, source) do | ||
| Map.has_key?(sources, source) | ||
| end | ||
|
|
||
| defp get_source(loader, source_name) do |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe instead we should just make get_source not private here? Then you could still do if !Dataloader.get_source etc.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The reasoning behind using a separate function was that get_source will currently raise, and it feels a bit unfriendly to make people wrap their checks in a catch. That said, is there any reason that it needs to raise?
|
The struct is typespeced and |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
While writing some code to add multiple sources to a loader, I noticed that after a source is added subsequent calls to
add_sourcewould overwrite the existing source which makes sense. But I wanted to be able to be defensive about it, so I've added a function to check before potentially overwriting an existing source.