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

updated hooks #2850

Merged
merged 9 commits into from
Aug 7, 2020
Merged

updated hooks #2850

merged 9 commits into from
Aug 7, 2020

Conversation

williamFalcon
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@mergify mergify bot requested a review from a team August 6, 2020 11:59
@Borda Borda added this to the 0.9.0 milestone Aug 6, 2020
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Aug 7, 2020

Codecov Report

Merging #2850 into master will decrease coverage by 3%.
The diff coverage is 95%.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master   #2850    +/-   ##
=======================================
- Coverage      89%     87%    -3%     
=======================================
  Files          79      79            
  Lines        7302    7863   +561     
=======================================
+ Hits         6514    6811   +297     
- Misses        788    1052   +264     

@williamFalcon williamFalcon merged commit f82d7fe into master Aug 7, 2020
@Borda Borda deleted the hooks5 branch August 7, 2020 13:35
@Borda Borda added design Includes a design discussion feature Is an improvement or enhancement labels Aug 7, 2020
@Borda
Copy link
Member

Borda commented Aug 7, 2020

btw, careful with setup and teardown adding extra argument in middle would be breaking changes... :/

@awaelchli
Copy link
Member

This PR breaks all user callbacks and hooks, is this intended?
Also it remove the test for a recent fix?
The call to is_implemented is not necessary as it is anyway true always and every hook/callback is a no-op by default, so we can just call it anyway.

@Borda
Copy link
Member

Borda commented Aug 7, 2020

This PR breaks all user callbacks and hooks, is this intended?

if a user uses positional arguments, then yes :/

@awaelchli
Copy link
Member

no, the user does't call the callback themselves. The user inherits them, so after this change the user has to go to every callback they have implemented and change the signatures manually. This is what you will have to do also in bolts I assume.

@williamFalcon
Copy link
Contributor Author

yeah, but it’s kind of a necessary evil for 1.0. unless u guys have a way of making it compatible? maybe we can try catch them or something

@williamFalcon
Copy link
Contributor Author

but i’m pretty sure only the new hooks i introduced have these new args. those hooks aren’t live yet, so it’s a fair change since they only live on master

@awaelchli
Copy link
Member

awaelchli commented Aug 7, 2020

Ok, I just wanted to make sure we are aware of it.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
design Includes a design discussion feature Is an improvement or enhancement
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants