You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
As of the current implementation, the fields level and parentTag? in FireTag are duplicates.
When parentTag is undefined, level is 1. When parentTag is defined, level is 2.
This means that unless we're planning to support multilevel tags (ie level > 2), we don't need the level field in FireTag and can instead derive the level by looking at whether parentTag is defined.
If we eliminate the level field, we can avoid internal invariants on our data types and reduce the risk of breaking these internal invariants, which can cause bugs.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Good point. I resolved a bug with these just last semester. I think it's better to restructure the data going forward with some kind of parenting or child relationships, not considering levels.
As of the current implementation, the fields level and parentTag? in FireTag are duplicates.
When parentTag is undefined, level is 1. When parentTag is defined, level is 2.
This means that unless we're planning to support multilevel tags (ie level > 2), we don't need the level field in FireTag and can instead derive the level by looking at whether parentTag is defined.
If we eliminate the level field, we can avoid internal invariants on our data types and reduce the risk of breaking these internal invariants, which can cause bugs.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: