[WIP] production modes #97
Draft
Conversation
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
vemv
commented
Dec 8, 2019
| @@ -1,3 +1,5 @@ | |||
| verify: `:pre`s preserved after refactor | |||
| @@ -109,6 +109,78 @@ | |||
| args-with-proper-tag-hints (ensure-proper-type-hints clj? args)] | |||
| (apply list args-with-proper-tag-hints prepost body)))))) | |||
|
|
|||
| (defn add-checking-form [tails ret-spec clj?] ;; deserves a test now | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Cover with tests
Particularly, for :pre / :post preservation (while we're there: fix #90)
| :clj? clj?}) | ||
| (let [analysis-result (process-name-and-tails {:tail (list [left]) | ||
| :name nil | ||
| :checking? false |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
change to true, stop parsing prepost, discard defn add-prepost, ensure sensible checking clauses are emitted for let
| (are [x] (-> x meta :arglists first second meta :tag #?(:clj #{'Boolean `Boolean} | ||
| :cljs #{'js/Boolean})) | ||
|
|
||
| (are [x] (testing x |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
also improve rest of are forms
| args-check-form? (-> args-check-form count pos?) | ||
| ;; XXX analyze symbols (specs), replace keys (?) | ||
| checking-form (when (or args-check-form?) | ||
| (cond-> [`checking {}] ;; XXX options |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"production mode" options must be implemented
| (apply concat) | ||
| (vec)) | ||
| args-check-form? (-> args-check-form count pos?) | ||
| ;; XXX analyze symbols (specs), replace keys (?) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
(this comment refers to the utils.spec checking possible API, and its possible differences to s.def's metadata API)
vemv
commented
Dec 8, 2019
| @@ -3,6 +3,7 @@ | |||
| (:require | |||
| #?(:clj [clojure.spec.alpha :as spec] :cljs [cljs.spec.alpha :as spec]) | |||
| [clojure.walk :as walk] | |||
| [nedap.speced.def.impl.analysis :refer [process-name-and-tails]] | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
defprotocol lacks macroexpansion coverage
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
Brief
Part of #70
QA plan
Author checklist
Reviewer checklist