types: adding ud, ux, p, and q #5
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
size-limit report 📦
|
patosullivan
approved these changes
Apr 11, 2023
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This adds support for @p, @q, @ud, and @ux. All pulled from
@urbit/apiandurbit-ob. Minor modifications made to formatUx/parseUx since they were assuming length of a web color which doesn't seem like a concern for this library.This should hopefully cover all of the previous cases that were covered by libraries. Anything after this would be new support.
I wasn't sure exactly how we wanted to handle @p and @q functions since they cover more conversion types/encodings whereas most of the rest fall into the parse/format string <-> biginteger. It seems like we should set some principles about this library to follow like we always only work with string/biginteger in base 10 or whatever. Similarly I think it would be nice to have a decision around whether to check for invalid inputs and throw vs return safely. Either way I just threw this in so we could go from there and have a good place to point people asking for @urbit/api.