-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 144
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
Recursive property query #106
Conversation
I'm not super thrilled with this change tbh. Mailnly, I don't like the multiple return types, but I also wonder if it wouldn't be better to just change the method signature on properties() to be able to query a single property, and to be able to do it recursively. In the case of recursively, you would still run into the issue of the multiple return types (Either a dict{str: str} or a dict{str: list(str: str)}. |
Do me a favor and squash. Then, I'll take a look. It'll be nicer to review and we won't be introducing a series of partial commits. |
I'll be happen to see if there's a way to mitigate your concerns (thanks for being honest :) ). You'll also have to write some unit-tests. Coverage dropped quite a bit due to your changes. |
I'm not 100% sure how to do that properly, so I'll close this request, and re-open a new one, with tests =D. |
Assuming that my remote is called "upstream", the easiest way is to do a
"git reset --soft upstream/master" to uncommit all of the files that you've
added since my last known commit, and then just commit those back in as one
big commit. You can also do an interactive rebase (e.g. git rebase -i
HEAD~5) and just ask to squash your last three commits at the top into your
first commit and then just adjust the commit message when the editor opens.
If you're scared of making a mistake, just note your current tip (latest)
revision and then, if you have issues, do a reset-hard (e.g. git reset
--hard <revision>) to set your tip back to it. All of the information will
still be there for a bit.
…On Tue, Apr 24, 2018, 19:05 jforand ***@***.***> wrote:
Closed #106 <#106>.
—
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#106 (comment)>, or mute the
thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AArragPnh2NjnNBN2CLM2K0euwhnne8Nks5tr6_AgaJpZM4TguPc>
.
|
This would allow for getting a single property, rather than the entire list, as well as being able to recursively get a property.