Thanks to visit codestin.com
Credit goes to github.com

Skip to content

Conversation

@liam-fitzgerald
Copy link
Contributor

Namespaces the links types according to the proposal in #2814 . I've made one minor change though, which is that the /sur/link-store file only contains types specific to the store. e.g. action, update and initial. All the other types should go in sur/link which should be imported with a tar. I've made this change because of the sheer amount of types that links uses. If this is ok, I'll revise the chat PR to match this.

cc: @loganallenc @ixv

@liam-fitzgerald liam-fitzgerald requested a review from Fang- May 8, 2020 23:47
Copy link
Collaborator

@Fang- Fang- left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Sorry for the wait on this!

@@ -1,7 +1,10 @@
:: link: social bookmarking
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don't think I understand why this entire file was renamed from /lib/link to /lib/link-store. Makes sense for the json conversions, but the other functions here mostly operate on suite-wide data, rate?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

none of these are used outside the link store though. imo the idea of 'suite-wide' data is kinda vague because the store itself should always store the 'suite-wide' data

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

You're right that it is a bit vague. My thinking there is that, even if you're interacting only with one of the hooks, you're still pulling in the core data types and working with those. Pulling in the store lib for that (which could very well contain helpers for interacting with the store) makes is slightly less obvious what you're actually touching. But it's also not the biggest deal.

@liam-fitzgerald liam-fitzgerald changed the base branch from master to release/next-userspace May 19, 2020 23:15
@liam-fitzgerald
Copy link
Contributor Author

should this be retargeted?

@Fang-
Copy link
Collaborator

Fang- commented Jun 2, 2020

next-userspace seems right for this, yeah. This seems good to go afaic. The "suite-wide" thing can always be revisited if it turns out it's a useful distinction later.

@Fang- Fang- merged commit 3092460 into release/next-userspace Jun 2, 2020
@Fang- Fang- deleted the lf/links-refactors branch June 2, 2020 15:16
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.

3 participants