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

Added Combine support and updated model properties to camel case (#4) #40

Closed
wants to merge 12 commits into from

Conversation

colinfwalsh
Copy link

Sorry for the previous PR, I should have read the Readme more thoroughly.

This might be a controversial PR, but I changed the script to automatically convert properties into camel case for the Codable models since that's the normal Swift convention. All models have been updated to the latest version of the lemmy-js-client.

I also added Combine support in case others find that useful.

* Sync with Upstream

* Updated models to use camel case instead of snake case as well as updating key decoding strategy.  Added Combine support.
Copy link
Member

@fishcharlie fishcharlie left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What Lemmy version did you use when updating the model properties?

autogen/index.js Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Sources/Lemmy-Swift-Client/Lemmy_Swift_Client.swift Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
autogen/index.js Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@colinfwalsh
Copy link
Author

What Lemmy version did you use when updating the model properties?

v0.19-rc19

This version will definitely need a tagged release considering all the breaking changes.

In terms of the requested changes, those all look good. I'll commit them as soon as I'm able.

@colinfwalsh
Copy link
Author

colinfwalsh commented Dec 8, 2023

What Lemmy version did you use when updating the model properties?

v0.19-rc19

This version will definitely need a tagged release considering all the breaking changes.

In terms of the requested changes, those all look good. I'll commit them as soon as I'm able.

Changes committed - let me know if you have any other comments/suggestions.

@fishcharlie
Copy link
Member

@colinfwalsh

v0.19-rc19

I don't think I wanna be using pre-release versions for this package. I'm open to conversation about this, but my initial instinct is to only use final versions.

@colinfwalsh
Copy link
Author

colinfwalsh commented Dec 9, 2023

@colinfwalsh

v0.19-rc19

I don't think I wanna be using pre-release versions for this package. I'm open to conversation about this, but my initial instinct is to only use final versions.

I think that's valid. My only counter is that it shouldn't matter since versions are tagged. For instance, the Readme could point users to using 3.0.3 but we'd still have 3.1.0 (as an example) for the upcoming 0.19 release. Once 0.19 is found to be stable, we update the Readme etc. I also want to note that 0.19 is due for release fairly soon - but I understand that's a weak argument.

At the end of the day, it's up to your discretion on how you'd like to handle things.

@colinfwalsh
Copy link
Author

I'd also like to advocate for a develop branch (or similar) that runs parallel to main for this exact scenario.

@colinfwalsh
Copy link
Author

Since v0.19 is officially supported and all requested changes are done, can we consider merging this or would you like to test this a bit further? I updated all the models for the official v0.19 release as well.

@colinfwalsh colinfwalsh closed this Feb 7, 2024
This pull request was closed.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants