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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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
Check executor params coherence #1774
Check executor params coherence #1774
Changes from 3 commits
e237da0
6c8cdfd
072af16
b7b972b
7412c3a
5e2b0d3
2287dfd
c1c0f4c
0ada761
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.
Can we have this logic right in
configuration.rs
? This file seems to be mainly defining a bunch of types with not much actual logic.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.
Yeah, it would be nice to if we could put the checks in one place. But that may require opening up the internal of
ExecutorParams
, do you think it's worth it? @mrcnskiThere 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 what you mean exactly, but I think it's fine.
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.
Sorry, I was thinking that we might need to make the internal state public in order to do the checks in another crate, like
pub struct ExecutorParams(pub Vec<ExecutorParam>)
. Then it's possible that other crates may rely on the internal state which is not great.I just realized that it comes with an iterator :)
But still, for the sake of separation of concerns, I think it wouldn't be a bad idea that the type does its own checks. Like, what if the checks are needed else where (other than
configurations.rs
)?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.
Fair enough. :)