Skip to content
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

fix(types): include 'as' in IncludeThroughOptions definition #11624

Merged
merged 2 commits into from Nov 1, 2019
Merged

fix(types): include 'as' in IncludeThroughOptions definition #11624

merged 2 commits into from Nov 1, 2019

Conversation

mrcrow85
Copy link
Contributor

@mrcrow85 mrcrow85 commented Oct 30, 2019

Pull Request check-list

Please make sure to review and check all of these items:

  • Does npm run test or npm run test-DIALECT pass with this change (including linting)?
  • Does the description below contain a link to an existing issue (Closes #[issue]) or a description of the issue you are solving?
  • Have you added new tests to prevent regressions?
  • Is a documentation update included (if this change modifies existing APIs, or introduces new ones)?
  • Did you update the typescript typings accordingly (if applicable)?
  • Did you follow the commit message conventions explained in CONTRIBUTING.md?

Description of change

This will add as property to the IncludeThroughOptions definition.
Closes #11185

@papb
Copy link
Member

@papb papb commented Oct 30, 2019

Hello, thanks for the PR, I have a question in the issue though, please take a look :)

@papb papb added the status: awaiting response label Oct 30, 2019
@papb
Copy link
Member

@papb papb commented Oct 30, 2019

Since this is currently undocumented, I don't think this should be merged as-is... @mrcrow85 would you be willing to update the docs with this fact as well?

In fact, can you first create an sscce showing this thing working? The issue's OP does not have time, thanks!

@mrcrow85
Copy link
Contributor Author

@mrcrow85 mrcrow85 commented Oct 30, 2019

@papb Sure! I can do that

@papb
Copy link
Member

@papb papb commented Oct 31, 2019

Thanks for the work so far @mrcrow85, I have some requests before we can merge this. Since this feature seems a bit obscure to me, I think more has to be done:

  • This has to be documented correctly, by adding a new line here
  • I would like to see a test for this behavior, this feature seems untested currently, so please add a test for it here

What do you think?

@mrcrow85
Copy link
Contributor Author

@mrcrow85 mrcrow85 commented Oct 31, 2019

@papb Don't we also need to update the docs here (on the findAll example)?

@papb
Copy link
Member

@papb papb commented Oct 31, 2019

@mrcrow85 Not every feature is explained in the guides/tutorials, so I wouldn't say it is strictly necessary. Also, since I happen to be in the middle of rewriting the guides already, don't worry about it.

@codecov
Copy link

@codecov codecov bot commented Oct 31, 2019

Codecov Report

Merging #11624 into master will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Impacted file tree graph

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master   #11624   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   96.26%   96.26%           
=======================================
  Files          94       94           
  Lines        9190     9190           
=======================================
  Hits         8847     8847           
  Misses        343      343
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
lib/model.js 96.54% <ø> (ø) ⬆️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 43ba131...6576cdd. Read the comment docs.

@mrcrow85
Copy link
Contributor Author

@mrcrow85 mrcrow85 commented Oct 31, 2019

@papb Does the codecov report is ok? Seeing 21% less coverage really worries me.

@mrcrow85
Copy link
Contributor Author

@mrcrow85 mrcrow85 commented Oct 31, 2019

@papb Does the codecov report is ok? Seeing 21% less coverage really worries me.

Ok, nevermind. It fixed itself 🤔

@sushantdhiman sushantdhiman merged commit cbef15f into sequelize:master Nov 1, 2019
4 checks passed
@mrcrow85 mrcrow85 deleted the update-IncludeThroughOptions-definition branch Nov 1, 2019
@papb
Copy link
Member

@papb papb commented Nov 1, 2019

Thanks @mrcrow85, great work!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
status: awaiting response
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants