-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 205
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
Use ValueEnricher in ScenarioRunner #10897
Merged
nickchapman-da
merged 1 commit into
main
from
nick-use-value-enricher-in-scenario-runner
Sep 22, 2021
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
Use ValueEnricher in ScenarioRunner.
1st attempt. Causes package recompilation (bad!). CHANGELOG_BEGIN CHANGELOG_END fix build Change ValueEnricher interface to work without passing an Engine ValueEnricher has optional preprocessor simplify new interface to ValueEnricher: caller passes translateValue function
- Loading branch information
commit 41938f83258d81c55debb2a54376ebca57fd51c6
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains 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
This file contains 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
This file contains 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
This file contains 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
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.
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.
I do not really like this java-like overriding of class constructor.
We are not using it at all in the daml-lf module.
I think this is there in scala for compatibility reason with java, but it is really not very idiomatic.
I would prefer to have an apply method in the companion object.
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.
Thanks for your comment Remy.
Yeah. I am also not a big fan of these secondary
this
constructors. The syntax is odd and rather constrained. See below.So I had already tried your suggestion of the
apply
method in a companion object. The problem is that all callers must be updated fromnew ValueEnricher(engine)
toValueEnricher(engine)
-- which is fine -- but without thenew
at the call site, it seems thatValueEnricher
looks more like acase class
, and obscures the fact that we are dealing with a mutable object.But my opinions are weakly held here... If we think it is acceptable/better without the
new
I can make the change.(
Aside: I found the
this
syntax is very limited. The following is not allowed syntactically:-->
er, why? 🤷 ... oh of course, scala 😄
)