Closed paganotoni closed 6 years ago
I feel some of the work in here could trigger some stories in pop, p.e duplicate field validation, and the possibility to avoid adding validation when generating a model
@markbates i think this one is ready to be tested @BryanMoslo if you want to give it a shot, i will also appreciate your input.
I think it makes sense, while i was working on this feature i considered this could be useful for other source modifications we do in buffalo hence why i added it as a separate struct, so, yes, i will move it there.
@markbates after thinking about it, i wonder if we could do:
genny
buffalo-auth
to use genny
and remove operator from it1 and 2 may be required to merge this PR but part of me doesn't want to hold this PR it because of genny
.
That sounds like a good plan. We can rewrite them, and move them, as file transformers later when we rewrite this plugin. On Jul 14, 2018, 3:23 PM -0400, Antonio Pagano notifications@github.com, wrote:
@markbates after thinking about it, i wonder if we could do:
- moving it to be its own package inside this package
- adding tests for that package
- moving that package to genny
- moving buffalo-auth to use genny and remove operator from it
1 and 2 may be required to merge this PR but part of me doesn't want to hold this PR it because of genny. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.
@markbates 1 and 2 completed, we can merge this one and then work on the genny migration, i'm willing to work in that one, i'll also use the new inflection package if possible.
(Also added some documentation to see if i convince you of the merge :))
Love it. Now can you convert it to Genny? :) I would also love to see each of those transformers to get converted to.
Yes, thats next in my list
Will allow adding custom fields to the generated user model, related with #1