refactor: DateField, HappensDateField and approval tests on DueDateField #1665
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
ilandikov
changed the title
claremacrae
approved these changes
Feb 16, 2023
|
Thanks very much, I was able to review all the individual commits and confirm that each was a safe, small change in behaviour. |
6 tasks
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Description
The idea is to prepare the date ranges introduction as in #1613
'DateField' class shall be optimised first. No new functionalities have been introduced. Also approval tests on 'DueDateField' class have been introduced (Just showing the current behaviour)
'HappensDateField' class has also been refactored in the same manner as it contains somehow a duplication of the logic.
Motivation and Context
There will be a need to introduce a change in the logic in
DateFieldclass however doing that requires first to refactor its code.How has this been tested?
No new functions have been introduced so the same test suite has been run
Screenshots (if appropriate)
Types of changes
Changes visible to users:
fix- non-breaking change which fixes an issue)feat- non-breaking change which adds functionality)feat!!orfix!!- fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)docs- improvements to any documentation content)vault- improvements to the Tasks-Demo sample vault)Internal changes:
refactor- non-breaking change which only improves the design or structure of existing code, and making no changes to its external behaviour)test- additions and improvements to unit tests and the smoke tests)chore- examples include GitHub Actions, issue templates)Checklist
yarn run lint.Terms