-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13
Reflection_Engine: Subtypes query added #2965
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
Reflection_Engine: Subtypes query added #2965
Conversation
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 can see the primary differences between the methods is that one is specifically for interfaces and the other (the new one, SubTypes
) is not.
Originally, I would say I wouldn't see the point of the second given the BHoM inheritance structure prohibits object inheritance, however we have broken that rule in strategic places, so I can see a reason for wanting to know the subtypes of non-interface types.
But I'm not sure we need two methods to achieve this. I think a bool
flag on ImplementingTypes
for interfaceOnly
would suffice? While I like the attempt to keep it tidy by having one call the other, I'm just not convinced the use case for individual methods is that strong as opposed to a modification of the existing one?
Though maybe the default bool could cause confusion so I can also see an argument for having them as separate methods... Happy to see what others think for a final decision I think.
Hmm, I got confused now @FraserGreenroyd. The facts as I see them:
... |
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.
Happy with the discussion from above - could we generate a unit test for this before merge though @pawelbaran ?
4473e5e
to
219e637
Compare
I will generate UTs on Monday @FraserGreenroyd - thanks! |
@BHoMBot check unit-tests |
@FraserGreenroyd to confirm, the following actions are now queued:
|
Following review of the unit test @pawelbaran built, it has been determined that this won't work with the overall unit test strategy as originally thought so I have removed the unit test for now to be revisited in the future. @BHoMBot check compliance |
@FraserGreenroyd to confirm, the following actions are now queued:
|
@FraserGreenroyd to confirm, the following actions are now queued:
There are 7 requests in the queue ahead of you. |
The check |
The check |
@FraserGreenroyd to confirm, the following actions are now queued:
|
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.
Code works and looks good, happy to deploy to support the Mongo work as this can be merged independently.
@BHoMBot check ready-to-merge |
@FraserGreenroyd to confirm, the following actions are now queued:
|
@BHoMBot this is a DevOps instruction. I am requesting neutral checks on: ready-to-merge |
@FraserGreenroyd I have provided neutral checks to the checks requested. These checks will need to be run properly to obtain full results. |
Issues addressed by this PR
Closes #2964
Test files
On SharePoint
Changelog
ImplementingTypes
andSubtypes
are essentially the same method, but I did not dare to merge them taken slightly different use cases (at least in my mind). However, happy to do it if requested in the review.Additional comments