-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.7k
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
feat: procedure blocks update models #6672
Merged
BeksOmega
merged 12 commits into
google:develop
from
BeksOmega:feat/procedure-blocks-update-models
Jan 5, 2023
+167
−222
Merged
Changes from 10 commits
Commits
Show all changes
12 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
1802f5e
feat: procedure blocks have models
BeksOmega 66b29ec
feat: add updating the name of the model
BeksOmega 2ed1635
feat: add procedure defs updating the model enabled state
BeksOmega 91abebc
feat: add procedure blocks updating parameters in the model
BeksOmega 4c8c0f1
fix: add disposing of the procedure model
BeksOmega 7679699
chore: updates test to check for identity of parameters
BeksOmega e15cded
chore: move statement handling into setStatement
BeksOmega d5ddf86
fix: make parameter IDs consistent
BeksOmega dc25b41
chore: un-only tests
BeksOmega 63f9f23
chore: fixup tests
BeksOmega b3c8654
chore: revert validator to use Procedures.rename
BeksOmega 616b4be
chore: cleanup typo
BeksOmega 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
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
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
Procedures.rename appears to already be finding and returning a legal name; additionally, it seems like setting the name on the model should be done by Procedures.rename in case it gets called through some other mechanism. Would it make sense to move that line into Procedures.rename() and revert this to just calling Procedures.rename directly like it was?
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.
Good call! When I was writing this I wasn't sure if we wanted everything to be 100% backwards compatible or not. If not, I was planning on removing
rename
so I duplicated the logic. But given we do want it to be backwards compatible, this is unnecessary.Skipped one test that was breaking because of the
isProcedureBlock
check I added. Will re-enable in the next PR once procedure definitions have adoProcedureUpdate
method.