Skip to content

Conversation

@jcoyne
Copy link
Contributor

@jcoyne jcoyne commented Aug 19, 2016

Prior to this change, it attempt to use the hardcoded Feature class,
whether or not it exists.

So, when I attempted to namespace my Feature class I got the following
error:

NameError: uninitialized constant Flip::DatabaseStrategy::Feature
/Users/jcoyne/.rbenv/versions/2.3.0/lib/ruby/gems/2.3.0/gems/flip-1.1.0/lib/flip/database_strategy.rb:5:in
`initialize'
/Users/jcoyne/.rbenv/versions/2.3.0/lib/ruby/gems/2.3.0/gems/flip-1.1.0/lib/flip/feature_set.rb:36:in
`new'
/Users/jcoyne/.rbenv/versions/2.3.0/lib/ruby/gems/2.3.0/gems/flip-1.1.0/lib/flip/feature_set.rb:36:in
`add_strategy'
/Users/jcoyne/.rbenv/versions/2.3.0/lib/ruby/gems/2.3.0/gems/flip-1.1.0/lib/flip/declarable.rb:15:in
`strategy'
/Users/jcoyne/workspace/curation_concerns/app/models/curation_concerns/feature.rb:6:in
`<class:Feature>'

Prior to this change, it attempt to use the hardcoded `Feature` class,
whether or not it exists.

So, when I attempted to namespace my Feature class I got the following
error:

```
NameError: uninitialized constant Flip::DatabaseStrategy::Feature
/Users/jcoyne/.rbenv/versions/2.3.0/lib/ruby/gems/2.3.0/gems/flip-1.1.0/lib/flip/database_strategy.rb:5:in
`initialize'
/Users/jcoyne/.rbenv/versions/2.3.0/lib/ruby/gems/2.3.0/gems/flip-1.1.0/lib/flip/feature_set.rb:36:in
`new'
/Users/jcoyne/.rbenv/versions/2.3.0/lib/ruby/gems/2.3.0/gems/flip-1.1.0/lib/flip/feature_set.rb:36:in
`add_strategy'
/Users/jcoyne/.rbenv/versions/2.3.0/lib/ruby/gems/2.3.0/gems/flip-1.1.0/lib/flip/declarable.rb:15:in
`strategy'
/Users/jcoyne/workspace/curation_concerns/app/models/curation_concerns/feature.rb:6:in
`<class:Feature>'
```
@jcoyne
Copy link
Contributor Author

jcoyne commented Aug 23, 2016

@pda Do you have any feedback about this PR?

@pda
Copy link
Owner

pda commented Aug 31, 2016

Ideally I think features should be declared in an initializer, not in a model class, as per #1 (comment), and then the model class should be customizable. However that would be a breaking change.

Perhaps this PR is a decent backwards-compatible way to at least escape the hard-coded Feature class though…?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants