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

Comment by Rafferty McDonald on better-config-sections #1794

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Aug 9, 2024

Conversation

haacked
Copy link
Owner

@haacked haacked commented Aug 9, 2024

avatar:

I've used a similar pattern on my options objects in the past by creating a unit test that uses conventions and reflection to validate all of the options classes/records have a static field for Configuration name with a non-null value. CI then fails it someone adds an options object without one. The configuration section name is used in builder extensions to have each option class identify the section with which it binds.

I like this as an option (haha) though. I'll have to give it a spin.

@haacked haacked merged commit fd7f1d4 into main Aug 9, 2024
@haacked haacked deleted the comment-2fc5d1da branch August 9, 2024 17:33
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant