-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 340
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
Make callback defs types less restrictive #364
Merged
edgurgel
merged 2 commits into
edgurgel:master
from
ryanwinchester:bugfix/callback-defs-types
Oct 16, 2018
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
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 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 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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
now that I'm reading this we will accept
any
for the result ofprocess_request_url
right? 🤔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.
Technically we want anything that implements
String.Chars
protocol (i.e. can work withto_string/1
), but we can't really spec for protocols, so... we're kinda forced to give suggestions, and then includeany
on the end, imoSame could be said for some of the other properties, too.
For example the
:body
we can expect{:stream, enumerable}
but can't really spec for the Enumerable protocol, so...any
:/Anyways, they can technically pass
any
where any of the properties have an associatedprocess_x
function and they implement it and return the expected type.We could make it more obvious if we do:
instead of
(even though they'd really be the same effect in the end, it's just visual)
Thoughts?
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.
@edgurgel I think it's either this or telling people to cast to string first and close #327 (and possibly tag
wontfix
)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.
Oh I agree with any for the input. I'm wondering about the return being
url
asany
is also acceptable 🤔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.
@edgurgel with this change
url
includes| any
;)So really we can put either, but i feel like using
url
in the return conveys the intention better, even though it doesn't really matterThere 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.
However, I'm fine either way, just let me know which you want and where.
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.
That's fine then 👍