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

operator list is now coded in the frontend #646

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Jan 10, 2025

Conversation

Pascal-Delange
Copy link
Contributor

@Pascal-Delange Pascal-Delange commented Jan 3, 2025

Continues #643, but with logic changes
The main difference is that the list of admissible AST Operators is no longer served from the backend. This was an early "by default" design decision, that did not age well.
Prerequisite for checkmarble/marble-backend#793

@Pascal-Delange Pascal-Delange changed the title some more renaming operator list is now coded in the frontend Jan 3, 2025
@Pascal-Delange Pascal-Delange requested a review from a team January 3, 2025 20:40
Copy link
Contributor

@ChibiBlasphem ChibiBlasphem left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM, I think we still need to simplify how the whole builder is managed in terms of state/context as this PR, even though it is quite small, was a little complex to read and follow.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

That's maybe nitpicking but now that OperatorFunction has been renamed OperatorOption shouldn't we also rename the file?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

yep true, I'll rename it

@Pascal-Delange
Copy link
Contributor Author

LGTM, I think we still need to simplify how the whole builder is managed in terms of state/context as this PR, even though it is quite small, was a little complex to read and follow.

Hard agree. I think there is scope for quite a lot of simplification, the tricky thing is to find where to start. I did this one because it really touched things that I stumbled upon while working on the builder in Nov. I'm open for proposals, whether it's "small touch" refactors (like this, even though it touched a lot of lines of code) or more structural changes (as time allows).

@Pascal-Delange Pascal-Delange merged commit 341c706 into pascal/refactor Jan 10, 2025
1 check passed
@Pascal-Delange Pascal-Delange deleted the pascal/refactor-with-logic-change branch January 10, 2025 09:30
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