-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 43
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
add option to encapsulate #199
Conversation
Will this change interact safely with fastify-autoload's default with the same name? |
next() | ||
}, { | ||
name: 'encapsulated-plugin', | ||
encapsulate: true |
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.
We need a test that verifies what the docs say: does it run all the validations?
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.
Would you say the 1 test is enough? I'd rather avoid repeating the whole test suite
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.
All the cases that have not been tested have an undetermined state, so the maintainers can't help whoever opens an issue.
In this case, the maintainer should add a test case for it and add it to the repository etc.. in an endless pain loop.
So, we can discuss about the minimal test suite we need, but yes: 1 test is not enough of a HUGE feature like this.
So I think the minimal test suite for this test suite is:
- check that the feature works as expected:
- are decorators encapsulated?
- is the fastify version check working?
- are mandatory decorators checks applied?
- is the required plugins option working?
- verify how fastify reacts to this configuration (plugin name chaining)
Co-authored-by: Manuel Spigolon <behemoth89@gmail.com>
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.
lgtm
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.
Could you integrate this 00d2bdd
commit into this PR before landing?
Thanks @Eomm; I pushed your changes to this branch |
Checklist
npm run test
andnpm run benchmark
and the Code of conduct
Resolves #197