Where communities thrive


  • Join over 1.5M+ people
  • Join over 100K+ communities
  • Free without limits
  • Create your own community
People
Activity
  • 05:53
    technofreak starred dry-rb/dry-monads
  • 00:14
    thekuwayama starred dry-rb/dry-monads
  • Dec 11 09:29
    blasterun starred dry-rb/dry-monads
  • Dec 11 08:34
    flash-gordon closed #115
  • Dec 11 08:34
    flash-gordon commented #115
  • Dec 11 08:31

    flash-gordon on v1.3.3

    (compare)

  • Dec 11 08:30

    flash-gordon on master

    Bump version to 1.3.3 (compare)

  • Dec 11 08:30

    flash-gordon on master

    Update CHANGELOG (compare)

  • Dec 10 23:46
    johnmaxwell commented #116
  • Dec 10 21:54

    flash-gordon on master

    Halt with mutable backtrace Ex… Merge pull request #116 from jo… (compare)

  • Dec 10 21:54
    flash-gordon closed #116
  • Dec 10 21:54
    flash-gordon commented #116
  • Dec 10 21:49
    johnmaxwell commented #116
  • Dec 10 21:47
    johnmaxwell commented #116
  • Dec 10 21:43
    johnmaxwell commented #116
  • Dec 10 21:39
    johnmaxwell commented #116
  • Dec 10 21:31
    johnmaxwell commented #116
  • Dec 10 21:22
    flash-gordon commented #116
  • Dec 10 19:41
    johnmaxwell opened #116
  • Dec 10 19:36
Ralf Schmitz Bongiolo
@mrbongiolo
it has something like an __after_initialize__ but I guess that's used internally, but maybe you could use super with it
tbh I haven't used initializer yet, but the ability to use super is something that should work
or then as you suggested some kind of hooks into it
Igor
@svilenkov
looks like defining a private method __after_initialize__ works
Ralf Schmitz Bongiolo
@mrbongiolo
try to get a failling spec and add it as an issue there, then we can take a better look at it
Igor
@svilenkov
This works definitely
private

  def __after_initialize__
    # custom initializer code
    super
  end
Piotr Solnica
@solnic
I wouldn’t recommend hiding complex object building inside a constructor
I suspect you’d like to hit the db in that overridden constructor?
Igor
@svilenkov
Well they are just ActiveRecord objects
a simple find method
Can that be set in a proc block of a initializer option ?
Krzysztof Wawer
@wafcio
Where can I find explanation about components (why it is named components) which are used in dry-web-roda ?
Piotr Solnica
@solnic
in my head, probably :D
it’s just an idea that a system is composed of multiple components, a component is an isolated part of a system that exposes some API that other components rely on
ie persistence component provides repositories that other components use to get application data
Krzysztof Wawer
@wafcio
I am wondering why it is named components instead of containers inside lib directory
Piotr Solnica
@solnic
components are stored in containers
actually system == container
but the fact it’s a container is an implementation detail, it just happens to use dry-container under the hood, hence the System::Container class name
Krzysztof Wawer
@wafcio
ok thanks
Rafael George
@cored
@solnic I was checking dry-validation specs
what do you think in turning some of those integration test into feature test. In terms of presenting some use cases like
'when you do this you will have that' because even following the integration specs is hard to know how everything works together from a client point of view
Piotr Solnica
@solnic
@cored the intentation of these specs wasn’t really to document usage :)
Rafael George
@cored
do you think will be valuable to have somthing like that ?
Piotr Solnica
@solnic
not sure tbh, the amount of use cases that we have is enormous, pretty much unlimited, there are already thousands of integration specs, not sure what kind of value feature specs would give us
esp that at the end of the day we need to write user documentation anyway
no specs will replace that
so I’m not very fond of the idea of having even more specs, unless they really provide additional value from test cov pov
Rafael George
@cored
gotcha
I was trying to understand what will be an entry point for the library
Jānis Miezītis
@janjiss
This message was deleted
Jānis Miezītis
@janjiss

Hey folks, wanted to discuss following idea. In application there are cases
where I want to have inheritance on Dry::Struct, but the child struct has
few less attributes. For example user has name, but manager does not require it:

class User < Dry::Types::Struct
  attribute :name, Dry::Types::String
end
class Manager < User
  ignore_attributes :name
end

What about having ignore_attributes option that just removes a specified attribute? Thoughts?

Piotr Solnica
@solnic
@janjiss just restructure your inheritance hierarchy so it’s not needed
@cored an entry point?
Rafael George
@cored
like I think in terms of what operations can I do with this system
Piotr Solnica
@solnic
Schema#call
Rafael George
@cored
taking an example from your own talk
you had something like CreateUser def call() method in that case createUser is my entry point
maybe a vague word to describe that situation
John Backus
@backus
@backus do you think we could wrap up dry-struct?
I have a growing need for it in my current project at work…I start having usecases similar to yours, so I’m motivated to help with that
@solnic I'm glad our use cases are beginning to overlap :) :)
I can try to find some time for it soon
To manage expectations though you should know that I have some big deadlines for work over the next 7 days so I might not get to it until then worst case
Piotr Solnica
@solnic
@backus cool man, it’d be awesome if we could wrap this up before Sept 12
John Backus
@backus
Okie doke that works with my timeline I think
Piotr Solnica
@solnic
@backus I fixed a bunch of things today so it’s pretty much ready for development
John Backus
@backus
Nice yeah I saw
I assume the constrained? thing is API on dry-types that needs to be consistent
Piotr Solnica
@solnic
@backus that and also fixed gemspec to use VERSION and fixed one failing spec due to a reference to a constant that was no longer there :)