-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.1k
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
Add JSON automatic handling #10
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Strictly technical, it doesn't need to be an Array/Object literal, does it? E.g.
In that case I'd rather write something like "...you can pass an instance of Array or Object..."
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Then we would be required to support it right? I don't see a clear reason for using an Array instance, if we were to support that then in that case we should for consistency also support Object instance, but Object can be anything, it can be a Date instance, a String instance, a custom object with methods without any relationship with key:value pairs, etc.
We could document that an "Array instance" is allowed, in this case it would work for Array constructors and literals, but then would we also support Objects for consistency? Do you think this is bad because ppl might read "Literals" as objects that should not be stored in variables? The intent here is just to limit the creation of the instances using literal notations, which AFAIK already handles all use-cases.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We could document that if it's not a valid JSON structure then it will use
String(object)
in the input, but then we would be enforcing behavior for invalid input, and any changes that does something else would be backwards incompatible.Assuming we are using semver spec, backwards incompatible changes should only be release in major version (in this case v3.0).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Now I get your point. I was specifically remembering that once I needed to fix an issue so this works:
Than I thought, if we say "literals" we might be unnecessarily restricting users to use literals. I didn't think of all the other objects. I just thought
new Array
andnew Object
will probably work just as well already out of the box...There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What about:
?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, that's use that!