Skip to content
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

Type api/* #1407

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

jchaffraix
Copy link
Collaborator

The first step was to rework the ApiRouter to
clearly state that it was using a trie and add
an appropriate TrieNode. This helped clean up
the types a bit.

Typed the handlers/validators though their
return value is anything that json_encode
can consume (so anything effectively :-)).

@jchaffraix jchaffraix force-pushed the julien_type_api branch 2 times, most recently from 3b03367 to 40913af Compare December 25, 2024 20:23
@jchaffraix jchaffraix marked this pull request as ready for review December 25, 2024 20:28
@cpeel
Copy link
Member

cpeel commented Dec 27, 2024

@jchaffraix - Can you please break out the TrieNode changes into a separate PR we can get in first? This change makes sense but I'd like to review and merge it in separately than the typing changes.

@jchaffraix
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@jchaffraix - Can you please break out the TrieNode changes into a separate PR we can get in first? This change makes sense but I'd like to review and merge it in separately than the typing changes.

I have split the changes in api/ApiRouter.inc into #1411. This may be a bit more than what you asked as it includes some of the added typing in the class... Those seemed small enough they shouldn't impact the review, however let me know if you prefer that we break this further.

The first step was to rework the ApiRouter to
clearly state that it was using a trie and add
an appropriate TrieNode. This helped clean up
the types a bit.

Typed the handlers/validators though their
return value is anything that `json_encode`
can consume (so anything effectively :-)).
@cpeel
Copy link
Member

cpeel commented Jan 19, 2025

@jchaffraix - I just rebased this to resolve the merge conflict from #1411

@cpeel cpeel requested a review from srjfoo January 19, 2025 01:42
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants