-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 212
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
[CIS-807] Add controllerWillChangeChannels
delegate callback
#1024
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
6 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
95a83db
Rename `ListChangeAggregator.onChange` -> `onDidChange`
VojtaStavik 0402968
Add `onWillChange` to `ListDatabaseObserver`
VojtaStavik 69836ba
Add `controllerWillChangeChannels` to channel list cont delegate
VojtaStavik 576fc16
Force `ChannelListVC` CV layout on `controllerWillChangeChannels`
VojtaStavik ac5adb1
Always try to deliver controller callback synchronously
VojtaStavik 042acfc
Update CHANGELOG
VojtaStavik File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
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.
Just for a consideration, I usually prefer to create a closure that allows to define what will be executed in function so for this case I'd have something like this:
This approach is a bit more verbose but generally gives you flexibility in tests. But as I mentioned, just for future considerations.
Generally it is annoying to switch to this approach, especially with 1100 tests, but it is quite simple and fast to use it in new tests.
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.
@olejnjak I see the benefits of this approach in terms of better flexibility, on the other hand, it also requires bigger setup in the test:
It's quite common for our current test setup to have multiple "mocks" for the same object but with different functionalities. So instead of having one almighty global mock, we have multiple local mocks. This basically replicates what you suggest but with concrete types rather than closures.
In this comparison, I don't see any clear winner there. However, thank you for pointing this pattern out. I'm sure there are cases where it works better than the "hardcoded" mock style.