Changes from roqua compared to develop.

Factlink / pavlov

Provides a Command/Query/Interactor framework.

MIT License

22 stars 4 forks source link

Changes from roqua compared to develop. #11

Closed jjoos closed 11 years ago

jjoos commented 11 years ago

@markijbema I deleted all the entity smuck from Pavlov. Per your theory this diff should be better readible, no?

markijbema commented 11 years ago

Meh, github sometimes doesn't understand when two branches do the same thing :/ With local branches i just merge back master, to get proper difference, but that doesn't really work in this case. Sucky :/ I think with a regular difftool you will get proper differences. Maybe we could try to create a new branch from roqua, and then merge in develop? Though that probably will give lots of conflicts :/

coveralls commented 11 years ago

Coverage remained the same when pulling b9764bce02b2151e2ee3a662f32872e7d927c907 on roqua:master into 116d872f7f4ca4295a5cc6c3e0eaba5ee33f84fd on Factlink:develop.

marten commented 11 years ago

@markijbema Better now?

To summarize this pull request, since @jjoos didn't provide one in the initial comment:

Adds Rails generators for interactors, commands and queries (rails generate pavlov:query FindSprocket)
Remove entity benchmarks, and entity usage notes in the README
Change operations to support only named (hash-based) arguments
Arguments can have defaults
Add (very basic) support for callbacks for operations (for an example see the changed README)
The structure of the spec/ folder now mirrors the structure of the lib/ folder (this causes some long removed/added diffs for the spec files; since we both independently migrated to RSpec it doesn't know to see this as move rather than an rm+add)
Remove validations

jjoos commented 11 years ago

@marten Thanks for the summary, the purpose if this pull request wasn't merging it all back. But to get an overview of the changes.

I suggest we look at smaller pull requests to merge, certain things back. I also need to take a look at the validations, since we still need them. Would it be a problem if they stay?

marten commented 11 years ago

No real problem, they mostly seemed to be deprecated, but not yet really. Since I had to convert the tests to RSpec, it seemed easier to delete them.

coveralls commented 11 years ago

Coverage remained the same when pulling 8e9bab2ab741dae3e5ee815ceb0319d703f14972 on roqua:master into bc140a0951b4cc6a97adc1251ad1da49c90a1e29 on Factlink:develop.