feat(storage-plugin): require explicit options when providing storage plugin #2100
Conversation
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
☁️ Nx Cloud ReportCI is running/has finished running commands for commit 05e965c. As they complete they will appear below. Click to see the status, the terminal output, and the build insights. 📂 See all runs for this CI Pipeline Execution ✅ Successfully ran 4 targetsSent with 💌 from NxCloud. |
arturovt
force-pushed
the
feat/storage-plugin-all
branch
3 times, most recently
from
8b65619 to
5d54118
Compare
BundleMon (Integration Projects)Files updated (2)
Total files change +24B +0.02% Final result: ✅ View report in BundleMon website ➡️ |
arturovt
requested review from
markwhitfeld,
kuncevic,
Carniatto,
poloagustin,
joaqcid and
splincode
as code owners
arturovt
force-pushed
the
feat/storage-plugin-all
branch
from
5d54118 to
4356b0a
Compare
rhutchison
approved these changes
Feb 22, 2024
arturovt
force-pushed
the
feat/storage-plugin-all
branch
from
4356b0a to
705cf3d
Compare
… plugin This commit updates the implementation of the register signature for the storage plugin. It now always requires `options` to be provided. We want to ensure clarity regarding the states that we're going to serialize. When no `options` are provided, we implicitly provide the `@@STATE` key, which defines that all states should be serialized. This implementation doesn't compromise extendability because we implicitly rely on the internal mechanism that transforms options. We should always require options to be provided and require developers to specify serializable states explicitly. This would allow us to have feature states because the feature registration mechanism would also know if the user explicitly specified all states to be serialized at the root level or not. **Note:** This change is breaking. However, it's time to make breaking changes to move forward, as the current implementation is stale and acts as a blocker.
arturovt
force-pushed
the
feat/storage-plugin-all
branch
from
705cf3d to
05e965c
Compare
|
Code Climate has analyzed commit 05e965c and detected 0 issues on this pull request. The test coverage on the diff in this pull request is 100.0% (50% is the threshold). This pull request will bring the total coverage in the repository to 95.5% (0.0% change). View more on Code Climate. |
rhutchison
approved these changes
Mar 1, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
This commit updates the implementation of the register signature for the storage plugin.
It now always requires
optionsto be provided. We want to ensure clarity regarding thestates that we're going to serialize. When no
optionsare provided, we implicitly providethe
@@STATEkey, which defines that all states should be serialized. This implementationdoesn't compromise extendability because we implicitly rely on the internal mechanism that
transforms options. We should always require options to be provided and require developers
to specify serializable states explicitly.
This would allow us to have feature states because the feature registration mechanism would
also know if the user explicitly specified all states to be serialized at the root level or not.
Note: This change is breaking. However, it's time to make breaking changes to move forward,
as the current implementation is stale and acts as a blocker.