-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 158
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
Exposing params via needs
is not congruent
#853
Labels
clarify api
Rename/remove/add something to make the API easier to understand
Comments
jwoertink
added
the
clarify api
Rename/remove/add something to make the API easier to understand
label
Oct 24, 2019
This is also confusing because in Operations we generate a getter. We should definitely create a getter for needs in operations as well https://gitter.im/luckyframework/Lobby?at=5db8858e2f8a034357fc578f |
paulcsmith
changed the title
exposing params via
Exposing params via Mar 7, 2020
needs
is not congruentneeds
is not congruent
paulcsmith
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Mar 7, 2020
Closes #853 The breaking change is that you can't use ? in 'needs' anymore. Also we may overwrite a method by generating a getter but I think there is very little change since most methods would be defined *after* needs
paulcsmith
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Mar 7, 2020
Closes #853 The breaking change is that you can't use ? in 'needs' anymore. Instead we generate a 'getter?' if the type is a Bool. Also we may overwrite a method by generating a getter but I think there is very little change since most methods would be defined *after* needs
paulcsmith
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Mar 7, 2020
Closes #853 The breaking change is that you can't use ? in 'needs' anymore. Instead we generate a 'getter?' if the type is a Bool. Also we may overwrite a method by generating a getter but I think there is very little change since most methods would be defined *after* needs
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
In the Pages, we access params with "@" whereas in the Action, we access params without the leading "@". This incongruence leads to extra effort on developer to remember when "@" is required and when not.
For example:
In the Action:
In the Page:
The
needs
directive should expose params so as to not need the leading "@" and the Page definition would become:The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: