-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 559
fix(client-presence): [BREAKING CHANGE] LatestMap keys limited to strings
#25904
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
Draft
jason-ha
wants to merge
6
commits into
microsoft:main
Choose a base branch
from
jason-ha:presence/map-key-validator
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Draft
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
6 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
eff468b
feat(client-presence): LatestMap key validation option
jason-ha 38464d0
improvement(client-presence): refine key validator
jason-ha 1cdea50
fix(client-presence): retain all remote updates even with invalid keys
jason-ha 6938b72
fix(client-presence): [BREAKING CHANGE]: remove `number` key from `La…
jason-ha d9a6eb2
docs(client-presence): internal ts-doc and generic name improvements
jason-ha 4c1a76d
fix(client-presence): no remoteUpdated when all keys are invalid
jason-ha File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
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.
Do we want to keep this optional long-term? If I recall correctly, we decided to make the main validator required since we believe it's best practice to use runtime validation in addition to the compile-time. I can understand how key validation might be more optional, but do we lose any compile-time help with this approach?
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.
I was thinking that it can stay optional. We can guarantee that keys are
string | number. Key validator would only be useful if you wanted to reduce from there.With the new proposal to return a
boolean, we can actually change the signature tokeyValidator(key: string | number): asserts key is Keys. When not provided, there wouldn't be anything to infer the Key type, but it should work when provided. I think the optionality won't matter. I will confirm.