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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
Tiered DI #52
Tiered DI #52
Changes from all commits
513e9d6
35cbfb3
48c63c6
ead8a03
7306c17
283d5a9
3af0d9a
bdfd7ed
b84cfc0
318c7bc
55e91fc
3c82483
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
Some generated files are not rendered by default. Learn more about how customized files appear on GitHub.
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.
Disabling
@typescript-eslint/no-empty-function
for this line would be nicer thannoop()
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.
Ok but then why do we have this rule when we don't want the thing that the rule forces us to do?
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.
We should probably start avoiding in-class assertion methods since we've learned recently they dont work outside of classes/instances themselves. But out of scope here.
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.
By extracting this into a variable it throws a shorthand properties eslint error.
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.
Can we disable this rule? In my opinion it actually reduces readability in a lot of cases. Bcs renaming it useClass would remove information
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.
Wouldn't it be nicer if the injection token was
childContainerProvider
since its just a function, and not a class? But i get the follow up on the original interface nameChildContainerProvider
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 think it has more value to start our injection tokens consistently with a Uppercase letter. I know it is a function but we don't distinguish between services and primitives (yet). Let me know if you think differently
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.
could have used
lodash/noop
😂