refactor: replace command inputs and options by a dictionary-like high-level data abstraction #2180
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
PR Checklist
Please check if your PR fulfills the following requirements:
PR Type
What kind of change does this PR introduce?
What is the current behavior?
I notice that all operations on command's inputs and options are using
.find()
to search for the first input/option foundWhat is the new behavior?
replace the usage of
Input[]
from.command.ts
and.action.ts
files by a new abstraction calledCommandContext
which hides the complexity of registering and retrieving some input/operation in a command lifecycle.this change is intended to improve:
Instead of having a bunch of calls like
inputs.find((o) => o.name === 'foo')
we now have just oneinputs.resolveInput('foo')
, which is also slightly fast as it uses JSMap
under the hood. This make it even clear that we shouldn't be define the same input name more than one time. I didn't write a validation for this scenario for [micro]performance sake but we could easily introduce that if neededInstead of relying on type assertion and non-null assertions, we're using generics to make the code less error prone at compile time. The present solution doesn't differ that much from type assertions but there is a room to improve that easily by now
Does this PR introduce a breaking change?