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

Override idls module to submodule to simplify idl update flow #1358

Open
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

3vilhamster
Copy link
Contributor

What changed?
Switched go mod for cadence-idls to submodule so we need to only update submodule when we want to updates idls.

Why?
Eliminate a confusion of separate version of idls used for thrift and proto and separate version used.

How did you test it?
make build/make test

Potential risks

Copy link

codecov bot commented Jul 16, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 76.42%. Comparing base (45557d5) to head (ef9b405).
Report is 1 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

see 1 file with indirect coverage changes


Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 3ed20f1...ef9b405. Read the comment docs.

@@ -114,3 +114,5 @@ retract (
v0.3.0 // Published accidentally
v0.2.0 // Published accidentally
)

replace github.com/uber/cadence-idl => ./idls
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

replaces do not work for anyone importing the client, so this only works for local developers

Copy link
Contributor

@Groxx Groxx left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

while I like the idea and there might be something we can do to streamline this, I'm pretty confident this can't work the way we want it to. it'll just cause even-stranger issues when we make changes and fail to update one or the other, and they're less likely to be caught in CI since they'll only affect external users (due to replace).

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.

None yet

2 participants