Use existing spec-coerce library for coercions#2
Open
WhittlesJr wants to merge 7 commits into
Open
Conversation
Author
|
Here's the aforementioned PR: |
5356289 to
0082fe7
Compare
0082fe7 to
7f56e17
Compare
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Here's my proposal to resolve #1 .
The spec-coerce library seems to me to be the most complete attempt at leveraging specs for data coercion. However, the interface is a bit more stringent than what cyrus-config has been accustomed to. Essentially,
:specshould only be provided as a qualified keyword to a registered spec. Bare predicates (likeint?) don't work in the way that cyrus-config has been using them in its tests and documentation.So, in addition to deleting the parsing logic from cyrus-config and using
sc/coerce!in its place, this PR updates the tests and documentation with the required usage thereof.Personally, I see this as a positive change, as specs should almost always be registered to keywords using
s/defanyway. So it's enforcing good code practice to an extent. Furthermore, spec-coerce's model of providing custom coercion decomplects the spec from the coercion:vs
This change is also pending a PR I made to spec-coerce.