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

feat: format object properties with types #59

Open
wants to merge 7 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

vankop
Copy link
Member

@vankop vankop commented Sep 28, 2019

This PR contains a:

  • bugfix
  • new feature
  • code refactor
  • test update
  • typo fix
  • metadata update

Motivation / Use-Case

#42
2nd proposal

Breaking Changes

no

Additional Info

Looks like for array and object we can skip formatting type.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Sep 28, 2019

Codecov Report

Merging #59 (db7e4f6) into master (62fb107) will decrease coverage by 0.58%.
The diff coverage is 97.67%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master      #59      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   98.72%   98.13%   -0.59%     
==========================================
  Files           5        5              
  Lines         550      645      +95     
  Branches      250      268      +18     
==========================================
+ Hits          543      633      +90     
- Misses          7       12       +5     
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
src/ValidationError.js 97.68% <97.33%> (-0.67%) ⬇️
src/index.js 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
src/keywords/absolutePath.js 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
src/util/Range.js 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
src/validate.js 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 62fb107...db7e4f6. Read the comment docs.

Copy link
Member

@alexander-akait alexander-akait left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Let's add test for multiple types, output should be like <key>: string | integer.

For objects we don't expand them, right?

@vankop
Copy link
Member Author

vankop commented Sep 28, 2019

Yes objects and arrays are not expanded

@vankop
Copy link
Member Author

vankop commented Sep 28, 2019

Multiple types could be only with anyOf | oneOf. Here we just look on type if it exists

@vankop
Copy link
Member Author

vankop commented Sep 28, 2019

so @evilebottnawi what we need in this PR still? Tests on additionalProperties ?

@alexander-akait
Copy link
Member

alexander-akait commented Sep 28, 2019

@vankop all is good, i will review deeply this in near future

@alexander-akait
Copy link
Member

/cc @vankop need rebase, also i think we should improve output using \n (like prettier do with objects 😄 ), because some error is very long

@vankop
Copy link
Member Author

vankop commented Nov 11, 2019

also i think we should improve output using \n

@evilebottnawi you have any ideas how to do it better?

When I did this I was thinking about it, but did not realized how to do it better, since it depends totally on terminal window size + font type/size. Approach when we rely only on amount of properties also fails because of glyph sizes

@alexander-akait
Copy link
Member

alexander-akait commented Nov 12, 2019

@vankop the good question, maybe we can solve this in other PR, i think packages like table have algorithm for this, need look on them logic

@vankop
Copy link
Member Author

vankop commented Nov 26, 2019

/cc @evilebottnawi

Ready to review

maybe we can solve this in other PR, i think packages like table have algorithm for this, need look on them logic

I think this really important, I will take a look in table package, thanks for suggestion

@vankop
Copy link
Member Author

vankop commented Nov 26, 2019

Also interesting question is - do we need sort properties alphabetically?

@alexander-akait
Copy link
Member

@vankop it is very old 😄 what we will do with it? close or rebase? 😄

@vankop
Copy link
Member Author

vankop commented Apr 15, 2023

I could merge main to make this relevant again

@alexander-akait
Copy link
Member

@vankop Yeah, let's do it

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.

3 participants