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

Use dry-transformer for application functions #23

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 10, 2021

Conversation

jodosha
Copy link
Member

@jodosha jodosha commented May 8, 2021

This change aims to replace transproc which is deprecated.

@jodosha jodosha added the enhancement New feature or request label May 8, 2021
@jodosha jodosha requested a review from a team May 8, 2021 14:11
@jodosha jodosha self-assigned this May 8, 2021
@solnic
Copy link
Member

solnic commented May 10, 2021

Should we come up with some conventional usage here? ie have a builtin component that provides common transformation functions? /cc @timriley

@jodosha jodosha merged commit a5aed55 into master May 10, 2021
@jodosha jodosha deleted the enhancement/dry-transformer branch May 10, 2021 07:48
@jodosha
Copy link
Member Author

jodosha commented May 10, 2021

@solnic Isn't that already happening by importing Array and Hash common functions? 🤔

@timriley
Copy link
Member

timriley commented May 10, 2021

I think @solnic was suggesting that we have offer a built-in place for these data transformers as part of the Hanami framework, rather than generating a file into the apps. Do I understand you correctly, @solnic?

I wonder if we could actually do a bit of both, to start with:

  1. We remove this file from what we generate. Everyone's needs/preferences for data transformation may be different, and something like this is easy to drop in yourself.
  2. Then we see how things go with 2.0 and perhaps consider an out-of-the-box data transformer component for a 2.1 or later release.

What do you think?

@solnic
Copy link
Member

solnic commented May 10, 2021

Do I understand you correctly, @solnic?

Correct 🙂

@timriley I'm OK with postponing this until after 2.0 final. A Functions file may be too suggestive at this point.

@timriley
Copy link
Member

Cool! Sounds like the next action here should be to remove it for now.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants