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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
clients(lr): allow for custom config #7613
clients(lr): allow for custom config #7613
Changes from 3 commits
8cdcea9
913d02b
b5d2e8c
fd10674
dee3d3f
361537c
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
why is this being removed?
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.
It was pruning the JSON sent back to LR, which would then place it in a Config proto that only had
{emulatedFormFactor, locale, onlyCategories}
. Since the rest weren't saved it made sense to cut the extras here. With the proto changes, most of the settings (i left out things likeoutput
) can be saved, so I'm undoing the pruning. The fields that aren't in the proto are safely ignored when serialized.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.
Gotcha, yeah basically I'm wondering why we don't need to prune anymore even though we still don't support 100% of the settings :)
Are the remaining extra properties any less of a concern than it was before? Based on the comments here, it seems like it was still technically unnecessary then but we decided to do it anyway 🤷♂️
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.
it's just a couple string values now. before it was like, 95% of it. pruning is slightly more unnecessary now :)
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.
wait how did it work the other way around then if one is a subset of the other 😆
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.
These objects are actually 100% equal, so either way would be fine. It was only apparent that the order is wrong when I was allowing more properties to be in the proto result.
so the test change isn't needed, but it is more correct. whatever settings are in the round trip json (from proto) should match the values as found in the originating settings json
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.
this comment gave me pause because it seems like the process of going through proto conversion turns
{}
intonull
, the previous comment suggests this is the case as well.wouldn't it make more sense to adjust our faulty result instead of the source json?
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.
The result is fine, but the jest matcher doesn't like
{}
when it expectsnull
. The distinction is meaningless in proto world but important just for jest.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 get that, but proto doesn't actually seem to turn
null
summaries into{}
based on the previous comments and the fact that you are turning{}
intonull
in the sample json, which means that proto seems to be turning{}
intonull
, not the other way around...right? or am I getting super confused by the names here androundtripJson
is actually the expectation not the one that went through the proto and backThere 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.
ahhhh yes, I got it all mixed up here. updated with what I intended to do
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 guess to finally figure out my real concern, is this something that anyone else will now have to change and match or are we the only people ever doing this proto-json conversion :)
apologies for being very slow on the uptake here 😆
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.
pretty sure the proto stuff has one user: us, with LR.
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.
awesome sauce