-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 443
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
Split method instead of Boolean input parameter #77
Comments
Really?
Splitting into
May also be valid of course, but not what the example set out to demonstrate. :-) |
No.. it's exact the same example, just the wording is clearer. With the enhanced example here I got more problems than before. That mean you would code the update table ... into the method and just hope, that there will not be an implicit commit.
--> then it makes also sense when there is this inside:
|
I'd still not say there is something "wrong" with any of these examples. It just sounds like we have different ideas of what the terms "update" and "save" mean, and what the overall structure of the code could be. :-) A more complete example could be:
There are three prevalent cases for Boolean input parameters:
Should we try and find a suitable case b. example to avoid the kind of misunderstandings with case c. examples we see here? |
The community has not responded to @HrFlorianHoffmann proposals |
Splitting the method may simplify the methods' code and describe the different intentions better
update_without_saving( ).
update_and_save( ).
The aboce example is wrong, isn't it. That suggest would implement, that some code will be doubled.
It should refactored to this:
update( ).
save( ).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: