Closed mschoenlaub closed 4 months ago
All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:
Project coverage is 99.48%. Comparing base (
a6c789d
) to head (af3cdb8
).:exclamation: Current head af3cdb8 differs from pull request most recent head 07c0341. Consider uploading reports for the commit 07c0341 to get more accurate results
:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.
@maxveldink , I definitely agree with your interpretation of the spec. It would also make a bunch of stuff easier, like fallback for optional methods and not having the same type checking code in every provider.
Cool, I've added #126 to track that work (hopefully I can get to it soon). I think I'll go ahead and merge this in and cut a new release so we can get this behavior released.
I was late to this review, but it all looks right to me from a spec perspective. Nice job and thanks @mschoenlaub and @maxveldink
This PR
InMemoryProvider
to work slightly better with subclassesRelated Issues
Fixes #121
Notes
It's somewhat weird that the client's tests use an actual
NoopProvider
instead of a mock. That kind of couples these changes more than i'd like to. But that's just how it is for now :) I'm also wondering, if we wouldn't actually need a slightly more elaborated solution where the client falls back to thefetch_number
method on the rovider, if it doesn't have afetch_integer
/fetch_float
. The reason is, that currently the client blindly delegates these calls, and there might be providers out in the wild.