Skip to content
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

Support lazy evaluation of signed module output file #51

Closed
wants to merge 0 commits into from

Conversation

benmusson
Copy link
Contributor

This change converts .map/.get to .flatMap to allow for lazier evaluation of the signed module output file.

@brianeray
Copy link
Collaborator

I think this is implicitly tested by existing coverage in SignModuleTest, but need to loop back around on Monday to be sure.

@brianeray brianeray self-requested a review August 9, 2024 23:36
@brianeray
Copy link
Collaborator

OK, finally getting to this today. One thing is that since you are coding in your own master fork it's prone to echoes in the commit history, ie commit 81e986e in the current PR. This needs to be rebased on the upstream inductiveautomation/ignition-module-tools master to remove that from the PR and leave only the commit(s) fixing the issue.

Spinning up another branch in your fork to replace this PR might be easier, but up to you.

Either way I'm kicking the tires on this commit locally. Should be able to wrap up this (or a replacement) PR today. 🤞

@benmusson
Copy link
Contributor Author

One thing is that since you are coding in your own master fork it's prone to echoes in the commit history, ie commit 81e986e in the current PR.

Yup, that is kinda gross. Will fix today.

@brianeray
Copy link
Collaborator

I try to tread lightly on suggestions on cleaning up commit history because I don't know how much expertise any particular contributor has with Git itself. Much of its functionality is not obvious and getting clean commit history can be even less obvious. E.g. when to use merge vs pull vs rebase vs cherry-pick vs whatever. They all smoosh code from two branches together.

@benmusson
Copy link
Contributor Author

@brianeray Eh, I think it's good to be picky 😉
#55

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants