You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
At present a Round object has to defined with a name and a list of Passes.
However, for abstract use we may just want to define passes and no name.
Consider a refactor to make name an optional argument.
Will have knock on effects where Round is used as calls will need to change.
Breaking change?
Requires:
Review how much of a breaking change this will be
Update Rounds.py Round class
Update Rounds tests
Update knock on effects in rest of code
Update any archerycalculator code affected
Notify of changes in docs?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I'm also not convinced that there is much case to define without a name - if using we will always be assigning the Round to a variable, so why not assign a "name" at least the same as the variable name.*
And in, e.g. an app, users creating custom rounds to be added to a database would want to give them a name so they can re-use them in future.
* Only case I can see is if defining the round as part of the the function call to elsewhere, but I would argue this is bad usage of the code.
I will let this sit for a little longer but will close on consideration after the current WIP MRs are complete.
At present a
Round
object has to defined with a name and a list of Passes.However, for abstract use we may just want to define passes and no name.
Consider a refactor to make
name
an optional argument.Will have knock on effects where
Round
is used as calls will need to change.Breaking change?
Requires:
Round
classThe text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: