Skip to content
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

Disable remote method by alias #385

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 1, 2016

Conversation

Overdrivr
Copy link
Contributor

@slnode
Copy link

slnode commented Nov 15, 2016

Can one of the admins verify this patch?

1 similar comment
@slnode
Copy link

slnode commented Nov 15, 2016

Can one of the admins verify this patch?

@slnode
Copy link

slnode commented Nov 15, 2016

Can one of the admins verify this patch? To accept patch and trigger a build add comment ".ok\W+to\W+test."

@slnode
Copy link

slnode commented Nov 15, 2016

Can one of the admins verify this patch?

@gunjpan
Copy link
Contributor

gunjpan commented Nov 16, 2016

@Overdrivr : Thank you for your contribution.
Could you please rebase the PR against master so that CI starts running.

@gunjpan gunjpan self-assigned this Nov 16, 2016
@gunjpan gunjpan added the bug label Nov 16, 2016
@Overdrivr Overdrivr force-pushed the disable-remote-by-alias branch from 0023e01 to 464cc8b Compare November 16, 2016 17:15
@Overdrivr
Copy link
Contributor Author

@gunjpan Rebase is done

@gunjpan
Copy link
Contributor

gunjpan commented Nov 16, 2016

@slnode ok to test

@Overdrivr
Copy link
Contributor Author

I'm a bit confused with the failing test reports, however they don't seem to be required. Is there something I need to do to make them pass ?

@gunjpan
Copy link
Contributor

gunjpan commented Nov 21, 2016

@Overdrivr : I am going to rerun it. We've removed one component from strong-remoting dependents and should pass now.

@gunjpan
Copy link
Contributor

gunjpan commented Nov 21, 2016

@slnode test please

@@ -295,6 +295,70 @@ describe('SharedClass', function() {
expect(methods).to.not.contain(INST_METHOD_NAME);
expect(methods).to.not.contain('instTestMethod');
});

it('excludes disabled prototype methods from the method list using ' +
Copy link
Contributor

@gunjpan gunjpan Nov 24, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Please reword this and others (use your best judgement) to make it easy:
excludes prototype methods from method list disabled by alias

it('excludes disabled prototype methods from the method list using ' +
'a method alias', function() {
var INST_METHOD_NAME = 'instTestMethod';
var INST_METHOD_ALIAS = 'instTestMethodAlias';
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

while we're here, please extract these variables out after L#80 and put the initialization in beforeEach() block (same as L#251) so that there is no repetition of same code.

Copy link
Contributor

@gunjpan gunjpan left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Code itself looks good. Please address my minor comments. Rebase only after we're ready to land (avoids repetitive efforts). Thank you.

@gunjpan gunjpan assigned Overdrivr and unassigned gunjpan Nov 24, 2016
@Overdrivr
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thank you for the feedback, let me know if the refactoring looks ok

Copy link
Contributor

@gunjpan gunjpan left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Changes LGTM.
Please rebase commits on master and squash them to one commit. Also, please provide small description of what it is trying to fix. See commit guideline.

@Overdrivr Overdrivr force-pushed the disable-remote-by-alias branch from e1313ea to 0f21ffb Compare November 28, 2016 16:23
SharedClass.disableMethodByName now checks all method aliases in
addition to the method name, for disabling a method
@Overdrivr Overdrivr force-pushed the disable-remote-by-alias branch from 0f21ffb to 5ac1161 Compare November 28, 2016 16:32
@gunjpan
Copy link
Contributor

gunjpan commented Nov 28, 2016

@slnode test please

@gunjpan gunjpan merged commit 7b84f74 into strongloop:master Dec 1, 2016
@gunjpan
Copy link
Contributor

gunjpan commented Dec 1, 2016

@Overdrivr : Landed.

@bajtos : I believe we need to backport this, thoughts?

@bajtos
Copy link
Member

bajtos commented Dec 1, 2016

@gunjpan I believe we need to backport this, thoughts?

👍 Please review the diff in 2.x carefully, we have made some changes in the way how remote methods are looked up in 3.0 and I am not sure if the backwards-compatible API changes were back-ported to 2.x.

@gunjpan
Copy link
Contributor

gunjpan commented Dec 13, 2016

@Overdrivr : Could you please back-port this change against [email protected]

Should you need any assistance, please let me know. Thank you for your contributions :) !

@Overdrivr
Copy link
Contributor Author

Sure, just to be clear I need to make a PR against this branch, after I checked everything is running ok ?

@Overdrivr
Copy link
Contributor Author

@gunjpan I tried rebasing the branch from strongloop/2.X, but it seems to be way too complicated to perform. What is the strategy for porting the changes ? Should I make the changes manually from 2.X ? Thanks.

@gunjpan
Copy link
Contributor

gunjpan commented Dec 19, 2016

Yes, back-porting sometimes is not straight forward and you may need to integrate code changes manually. Not sure how much of that will require for this PR though. Please give it a try and see how much effort is that. If it is too big of a change, we'll have to be considerate on what we backport.

I may give it a try when I find some time. Thank you for your efforts :)

@Overdrivr
Copy link
Contributor Author

Overdrivr commented Jan 7, 2017

@gunjpan Sorry for the late response, made the backport in #395, same exact code for 2.X. Cheers !

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants