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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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
Move version APIs to the specs-go package #214
Move version APIs to the specs-go package #214
Changes from 5 commits
58bb34a
1e39659
ab28e02
6abc5e0
54e62a8
2cad149
7dd001f
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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 could consider moving these to
specs-go/version_test.go
.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.
This would add a bunch of dependencies to specs-go/go.mod/sum, which would make it harder to import into k/k
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.
That is true.
Let's leave it where it is then.does it at least make sense to move them to aversion_text.go
file in this package then with note on their intent?Would implementing them in a
specs_test
package improve the dependency situation?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.
It's out of scope for this PR, but we may want to be stricter on our language here. In the spec the entity we're parsing here is the
Kind
, but this public function refers to it as a qualifier. Since we're in thespecs
package here, do we want to rename this toSplitKind(string)
instead?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.
Generally it makes sense to me. I'd propose to rename it to
ParseKind
if you don't mind. And I agree, it's out of scope of this PR.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. Let's do this as a follow-up then. (
ParseKind
) is fine.