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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
feat(parameters): added
BaseProvider
class #1168New 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
feat(parameters): added
BaseProvider
class #1168Changes from all commits
a2de862
e52c416
bc0a5f9
de13951
f9259eb
2a294ef
734c98f
82fa784
3ef5990
14f8b81
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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 couldn't think of a more elegant way of constructing this key.
For context:
{ name: string, transform: TransformOptions }
since we are using aMap
, but given thatMap.has
andMap.get
use object identity to compare the key it would never return a match - also it's not possible to extend/customize the equality function used by aMap
Set
have the same limitations described above and that apply toMap
immutable-js
or custom implementations ofSet
, but opted not to in order to avoid introducing a dependency over this otherwise limited usage.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.
As long as the test cases are rigorous enough, this should be ok. I cannot see how we can run into having a duplicated here, can we?
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.
Agree.
I wasn't worried about duplicates as much as special characters and such.
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.
As mentioned in the comment here, I stayed generic with types because at this stage I'm not yet sure what each provider/AWS SDK (from
_get
) will return.I have opened #1172 to track this work.
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 have opened #1172 to track this work.
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 have opened #1172 to track this work.
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 have opened #1172 to track this work.