-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 289
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
Feature/omit non private modifiers on private types #1398
Open
polarene
wants to merge
2
commits into
square:main
Choose a base branch
from
polarene:feature/Omit_non-private_modifiers_on_private_types
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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.
Not sure it makes sense to filter out the modifiers both here and when passing the implicit modifiers to
funSpec.emit()
- maybe we should simply add unnecessary visibility modifiers toimplicitModifiers
if the type is private? Any reason why that wouldn't work?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.
Hopefully that also adds support for properties which I suspect exhibit the same behavior.
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.
Honestly, I don't know the library this deep... I tried to reverse engineer how the mechanism works and found out that filtering here before emit() caused the least amount of code changes. What would you suggest as a better approach? Also, I limited the scope to functions only, following the issue description, but if you want we can extend it to properties as well, need to double-check.
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.
I think when I did the initial implementation, I tried to add visibility modifiers to
implicitModifiers
but that didn't work for PUBLIC, since it undergoes a contrived logic I couldn't fully grasp and didn't feel confident modifying that, so I turned to this approach.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.
@Egorand so what should we do with this implementation, do you have any advice?
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.
I think the least amount of changes should not be the priority here, and your PR IMO adds complexity rather than reducing it. I believe
implicitModifiers
is the right tool for the job, and it'd be great to remove the obstacles preventing it from working correctly - e.g. the custom handling ofPUBLIC
should probably be removed in favour of achieving the same result withimplicitModifiers
. This will likely require deeper knowledge of the library's inner workings and understand if you don't have the time to invest, but I don't think current approach is the best one.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.
Ok, thanks for your feedback. You're right, this solution increases complexity and it was a quick workaround for
implicitModifiers
not working as expected. I'll try to dedicate some time to this issue and rework the solution following your guidelines.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.
Thank you!