allow multiple states to be defined on one line #288
Merged
Conversation
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
|
@HParker Thanks for the pull request, which looks great so far (and I'm looking forward to merge it). A couple of things though:
Regarding the README, I'm happy to take your change (and maybe add a comment later). |
| if args.last.is_a?(Hash) && args.size == 2 | ||
| names = [args.first] | ||
| options = args.last | ||
| elsif |
|
looks good, thanks @HParker - will definitely use that when merged :-) |
…_line - also fix typo and move arg deconstruction to private method
|
I just released version |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
resolves #146
I don't know if anyone still wants it, but it was straight forward enough to add.
I hope you don't mind I coopted the first example in the readme to show the new syntax. I am happy to change that if you prefer it done differently.
Question: The issue also mentioned being able to refer to multiple states by
statesrather thanstatein theaasmblock, howeverstatesas defined in base is already accessible from that scope as we just instance_eval the block against the base class. I was wondering if you would be open to scoping the methods that are callable from the aasm block to some subset of the methods in base. I am happy to create an issue and take a look.