Skip to content
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

feat: A macros for generating fake data #18

Closed
warioddly opened this issue May 20, 2024 · 4 comments
Closed

feat: A macros for generating fake data #18

warioddly opened this issue May 20, 2024 · 4 comments
Labels
question Further information is requested

Comments

@warioddly
Copy link

warioddly commented May 20, 2024

Description
When developing, sometimes you have to fill models with data with your own hands when there is no other data or use third-party packages

Desired Solution
Give the opportunity to add an annotation to generate fake data

Alternatives Considered
https://pub.dev/packages/faker

Yes, it sounds so easy, in fact, you have to take a lot into account, like the length of the strings that you want to generate, etc.) But is it possible to do this with anatations on top of class properties?) If this feature is not suitable for this plugin, can we open a new repo as a new plugin?

@felangel
Copy link
Owner

Hi @warioddly 👋
Thanks for opening an issue!

That seems like it might be out of scope for this library since fake data probably belongs in a mock/fakes package rather than a data_class package. What do you think?

@felangel felangel added the question Further information is requested label May 20, 2024
@warioddly
Copy link
Author

Yes, I also think that it goes beyond the scope of this plugin. But I also think that the data of the class properties also belongs to the data part, or is this a bad idea and we should make another package? I had a question about this👾)

@warioddly
Copy link
Author

it would be great not to create separate classes for generation fake data, but just attach an annotation to the properties and the class.

@felangel
Copy link
Owner

Yeah I think ideally this should belong in a separate package and you can stack annotations as needed 👍
Closing this for now but happy to continue the conversation if you have any additional comments/thoughts.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
question Further information is requested
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants