I've been thinking about an "impendance mismatch" between V1 and V2 that will make upgrading more difficult (whether manual or scripted). This is an attempt to patch over a common case. I'm not 100% sold on it myself - I'd like to keep the DSL as simple as possible. Feedback welcome.
Consider the following V1 Blueprint:
class WidgetBlueprint < Blueprinter::Base
view :normal do
field :name
end
view :extended do
include_view :normal
field :description
end
end
There are currently two ways to represent this in V2: inheritance and partials.
# Inheritance has the drawback that the extended view's name will change to
# "normal.extended". This will require callsites to be updated with the new name.
class WidgetBlueprint < Blueprinter::V2::Base
view :normal do
field :name
view :extended do
field :description
end
end
end
# Using partials avoids that, but looks...not great. A converted codebase would be
# full of Blueprints defined like this:
class WidgetBlueprint < Blueprinter::V2::Base
partial :normal do
field :name
end
view :normal do
use :normal
end
view :extended do
use :normal
field :description
end
end
What this PR adds
This PR allows a view to specify which view it should inherit from, without affecting the name:
class WidgetBlueprint < Blueprinter::V2::Base
view :normal do
field :name
end
view :extended, inherit: :normal do
field :description
end
end
Maybe a better idea??
Note that the above doesn't address cases where V1 views inherit from multiple views. Those would still need to resort to partials. What if every view implicitly defined a partial for itself? 🤯 I think that would solve everything. Much simpler to implement, too.
I've been thinking about an "impendance mismatch" between V1 and V2 that will make upgrading more difficult (whether manual or scripted). This is an attempt to patch over a common case. I'm not 100% sold on it myself - I'd like to keep the DSL as simple as possible. Feedback welcome.
Consider the following V1 Blueprint:
There are currently two ways to represent this in V2: inheritance and partials.
What this PR adds
This PR allows a view to specify which view it should inherit from, without affecting the name:
Maybe a better idea??
Note that the above doesn't address cases where V1 views inherit from multiple views. Those would still need to resort to partials. What if every view implicitly defined a partial for itself? 🤯 I think that would solve everything. Much simpler to implement, too.