-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 188
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
Add AccessorProvider #807
Add AccessorProvider #807
Conversation
Hi @matthewshaer! Thank you for your pull request and welcome to our community. Action RequiredIn order to merge any pull request (code, docs, etc.), we require contributors to sign our Contributor License Agreement, and we don't seem to have one on file for you. ProcessIn order for us to review and merge your suggested changes, please sign at https://code.facebook.com/cla. If you are contributing on behalf of someone else (eg your employer), the individual CLA may not be sufficient and your employer may need to sign the corporate CLA. Once the CLA is signed, our tooling will perform checks and validations. Afterwards, the pull request will be tagged with If you have received this in error or have any questions, please contact us at [email protected]. Thanks! |
Thank you for signing our Contributor License Agreement. We can now accept your code for this (and any) Meta Open Source project. Thanks! |
for f in dataclasses.fields(node): | ||
child = getattr(node, f.name) | ||
if type(child) is cst.CSTNode: | ||
accessor = self.get_metadata(AccessorProvider, child) | ||
self.test.assertEqual(accessor, f.name) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is not a very valuable test as it just duplicates the core logic. I suppose that's true for the parent metadata provider tests too
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
yes - that is what I based this on - what would you suggest ? Should I serialise something like a tree of accessors and confirm it gets the right serialization ? (btw I have tested the logic works in a client application)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Should I serialise something like a tree of accessors and confirm it gets the right serialization ?
If you have the time, that would be great. No big deal if not.
…parent to that child node ufmt
Thanks! :) |
Adding a provider which can tell what accessor to use to go from the parent to that child node
Summary
I want to be able to see what accessor needs to be used to go from the parent to the given child
Test Plan
Added unit tests