feat: Synchronous Client: Remove mut from methods #646
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
BKDaugherty
force-pushed
the
sync_client_mutability
branch
from
3910288 to
39a0389
Compare
swanandx
requested changes
Nov 9, 2023
Given the synchronous client just uses the asynchronous client under the hood, I don't think these need to be mut, although I could be misunderstanding their usage. I also don't think this is a breaking change, given we are moving from `&mut self` to `&self`.
BKDaugherty
force-pushed
the
sync_client_mutability
branch
from
39a0389 to
178b816
Compare
|
Thanks for the review @swanandx! Rebased on main, and updated the changelog! Would love another look! |
swanandx
approved these changes
Nov 10, 2023
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
I realized that the synchronous client might not actually need to take
&mutself instead of&selfhere. I think reducing the requirements on this would make it more ergonomic.Also with respect to a breaking change, I'm not actually sure that this is one. I don't think it is, but am not really sure how to tell.
Type of change
New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
Checklist:
cargo fmtCHANGELOG.mdif its relevant of user of the library. If its not relevant mention why.