🏷️ Better typings for RunDetails #600
Merged
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
dubzzz
commented
Jun 2, 2020
|
This pull request is automatically built and testable in CodeSandbox. To see build info of the built libraries, click here or the icon next to each commit SHA. Latest deployment of this branch, based on commit d2572d0:
|
dubzzz
commented
Jun 2, 2020
dubzzz
commented
Jun 2, 2020
dubzzz
changed the title
dubzzz
changed the title
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Why is this PR for?
Better typings for RunDetails. Currently typings defined for RunDetails are too permisive. Even if most of our users will never have to rely on this type, for users relying on it, it requires a deep knowledge of its content.
For instance, there are 3 different causes that can mark a run as failed: property failed, too many skips or interrupted. And depending on the situation, we may or may not have a counterexample. By defining stricter typings we will provide our users with safer types but also prevent some potential bugs in our code.
In a nutshell
✔️ New feature
❌ Fix an issue
❌ Documentation improvement
❌ Other: please explain
(✔️: yes, ❌: no)
Potential impacts