[WIP] Make the generators stateless by providing the context to expand and shrink #30
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
sunesimonsen
changed the title
sunesimonsen
changed the title
sunesimonsen
force-pushed
the
ssimonsen/stateless-generators
branch
from
ba83887 to
1289922
Compare
sunesimonsen
changed the title
|
I evaluated this solution with the instrumentation system, it doesn't really work as it seems to be very important to take a input and expand it on the parent generator. So I need to think more about the solution. |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
It has been bothering me, that you have to make sure to pass the generated values to shrink and expand manually and in addition to that I was storing information on the generators which should be stateless as they are just a description of how to generate values. I haven't known how to solve this problem until now. But I think this is a good solution and given that we are just removing an argument, I think this should be backwards compatible with regards to the documented API.
Tested against unexpected-check's test suite.