Namespace caches and branches with new router IDs #2135
Merged
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
|
Rather than pulling in And rather than nested |
|
Thank you for the suggestions! Using tuple keys for the hashmap introduced a couple of clones, but I think it's still better |
|
Looks great, thanks so much! |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
I had another go #1806 and it turned out to be easier than I previously thought to solve naively. But I'm not sure this is an ideal solution, maybe the IDs shouldn't be UUIDs, or maybe the caches should be held by the objects directly.
I'm also finding it hard to add a unit/integration test, so I would welcome a suggestion on this as well.