Remove handler boilerplate by defining a "base handler" #340
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
julienduchesne
force-pushed
the
julienduchesne/remove-boilerplate
branch
from
b170ece
to
ce08540
Compare
Lots of the handler functions are just placeholders and used in some contexts By using a base handler, we can set defaults that do nothing and can be overridden (shadowed)
julienduchesne
force-pushed
the
julienduchesne/remove-boilerplate
branch
from
ce08540
to
e919677
Compare
malcolmholmes
approved these changes
Feb 16, 2024
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Lots of the handler functions are just placeholders and used in some contexts
By using a base handler, we can set defaults that do nothing and can be overridden (shadowed)
If this is accepted, I think I'd do a follow-up where we could switch to TF-provider-style handler provisioning where each handler is a struct of the same type rather than an interface with various attributes that describe it (CRUD+List functions, etc) and it would make it even easier to specify new resource types