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
Task func extensions #1011
Task func extensions #1011
Conversation
Are you aware that #990 is marked with The |
Hi @jnyrup and @dennisdoomen! Yes, I had seen the label "breaking change". You are absolutely right, the changes are not binary compatible. But for my understanding, the backend classes like I found that FA is a strong named assembly. So, changing version to 5.7.X would require recompilation anyway. Do we really need to wait for version 6.0 for this update? What are your planes for 6.0 to wait until end of year? With PR #1013 I provided subset of this PR for #1001, as requested. |
abort |
This PR wants to implement the issues #990 and #1001 .
Maybe it is not yet completed, but I think it is time for a review.
Please note:
Timing issues
I implemented new functionality which is related to timing. Unfortunately this cause failed tests from time to time because the real timing cannot be setup as exact as required (without creating real slow tests).
I already have seen some other tests which have the same problem. But I have no (easy) idea yet, how to get the problem fixed.
I think it will only work if the timing is fully mocked. We could introduce a new internal interface like that:
Maybe you know already a good abstraction for the timer.
Anyway, the full solution is a new issue, I guess.
Unit test method naming
I added several unit tests for the new functions. But for me, your naming style for the test methods is completely new (never seen before).
I tried to build names according to the existing tests. Hopefully it is ok. Otherwise please tell me the correct names or even better: Please just rename the tests directly, if needed.
BTW: What do you think about the popular style [UnitOfWork_StateUnderTest_ExpectedBehavior]?