Codecov Report

Merging #168 into master will decrease coverage by 1.08%.
The diff coverage is 26.85%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #168      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   62.82%   61.73%   -1.09%     
==========================================
  Files          48       48              
  Lines        3844     3936      +92     
==========================================
+ Hits         2415     2430      +15     
- Misses       1028     1105      +77     
  Partials      401      401              

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update ec28241...e880803. Read the comment docs.

@speza Hey man. :) Do you have anything more to add to this by any chance? :)

Sorry, there is now a lot of merge conflict on this. :)

Hey @Skarlso! Good question! Apologies, life has gotten in the way of doing anything open source at the moment.

I guess this comes down to whether we need this enhanced functionality at this stage?

I'd love to get back into it at some point. So I could attempt to fix them sometime or rework the whole change. Its been a while since I delved into here though.

I think it's a good to have thing if we want to take things seriously. :) So if you need any help just let me know. Also, I'm very sorry, but I'm about to merge a large change to the singleton service thing. :D

Agreed @Skarlso :) Thank you, will do.
And ha np. I will be honest, I don't favour the singleton approach in general 😛

@speza Oh definitely, I am not so happy about it either. But at that time I thought it's cool. Time passed, and I would like to think that I learned a lot since. :) So now I see better approaches which I would like to apply with providers.

But it's a lot of work and a massive refactor since these services are so deeply engrained. I'll get there in time... This is a first step. The scheduler was the smallest and resulted in a TON of change... :D

Yeah no worries @Skarlso! I also didn't mention anything before because I thought it was ok too :)

I'm a big fan of proper dependency injection wherever I write code these days, primarily Java still (ew) but been a lot more Go too recently. With Go I favour building the dependency higher up in the application and passing it all the way through where required. Still been meaning to try out something like https://github.com/google/wire - but in general I follow the pattern highlighted in their tutorial (just without the wire generated code).

Closing. Working on a better solution :)