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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Implement useEmulator for Functions #3906
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
Implement useEmulator for Functions #3906
Changes from 3 commits
d94d398
962e42e
53d5ef2
67ed9d8
c7e4450
2ac377b
ebbdd04
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.
Is it intended for the function to have the same name,
useEmulator
, in exp for Functions, Firestore, and Database? Sorry if I missed it in the proposal, I don't think I saw anything on it. This would require the user to rename it on import if they're planning to use more than one, correct? e.g.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.
Ah yeah the proposal didn't cover
exp
since I didn't know about that at the time. I see the issue. I could either:a) Omit
exp
for nowb) Go with
useFunctionsEmulator
as I think that's reasonable.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.
And actually now that I think about there's no reason to carry forward a
@deprecated
method to theexp
API at all, 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.
Oh right, makes sense, much simpler.