-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.4k
Add @options back into serializers for passing custom options #453
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
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or 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 hidden or 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 hidden or 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
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@ | ||
require 'test_helper' | ||
|
||
module ActiveModel | ||
class Serializer | ||
class OptionsTest < ActiveModel::TestCase | ||
def setup | ||
@profile = Profile.new({ name: 'Name 1', description: 'Description 1', comments: 'Comments 1' }) | ||
end | ||
|
||
def test_meta | ||
profile_serializer = ProfileSerializer.new(@profile, root: 'profile', random_option: "This is an option") | ||
|
||
assert_equal("This is an option", profile_serializer.options[:random_option]) | ||
end | ||
end | ||
end | ||
end |
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.
Doesn't this in incur an Array allocation on every loop through the @options list or would extracting that out to a constant be too much of a micro-optimization?
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.
@nixme it definitely does. I wrote up a quick benchmark script to test the two methods very simply at https://gist.github.com/jasontruluck/7722888 . From the results I would say for an average use case it is negligible. At n=10 results list there is almost no discernible difference and even at 1,000,000 items is only fractions of a second. That being said, moving this out into a constant is a super easy change that can be made very easily. So even though I would consider it a micro-optimization there is no real harm in it to me, but I would like to differ to @spastorino as to whether this change is worth a PR or not.
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.
I can do the PR if @spastorino think's it's worth it. Thanks for running the numbers!
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.
No problem at all!
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.
👍 let's move this into a constant
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.
naming it properly would also express better the intention