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
BVAL-508 Second round with both alternatives #23
Conversation
Test |
|
||
Extractors for the specific tuple container and value type can be implemented. | ||
|
||
TODO: should we differentiate single and plural? |
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 think it's good for the sake of perf - no Iterable allocation in the singular case.
Replacement for #20 |
c0618a4
to
90cf69c
Compare
@emmanuelbernard I've sent PR emmanuelbernard#1 against your repo with an update to my alternative. Overall I think we can continue discussion based on yours, as you say the have converged more or less. The only difference being support for unknown generic containers in my proposal, but I think that's sufficiently covered in your one with the possibility for providing a custom extractor in such cases. |
@emmanuelbernard, any thought? Do you think we can merge it (with the changes I made and sent as PR against your repo)? |
Applied to production and converted to asciidoc |
This second round offers improvement on the initial proposal (called proposal 1)
@ExtractedValue
It also includes Gunnar's proposal (proposal 2). Gunnar's proposal does not go into all of the nasty details though, so this round of review will need to pounce this aspect.