Skip to content

Conversation

iphydf
Copy link
Member

@iphydf iphydf commented Feb 5, 2025

Instead of transitively loading them from dependencies, we should be explicit about what each object needs. The downside of this is that it's not clear whether the object and its dependency use the same common dependency. The upside is that we don't expose those getters of internal dependencies.


This change is Reviewable

@iphydf iphydf added this to the v0.2.22 milestone Feb 5, 2025
@github-actions github-actions bot added the refactor Refactoring production code, eg. renaming a variable, not affecting semantics label Feb 5, 2025
@iphydf iphydf force-pushed the getters branch 5 times, most recently from 45d8e7d to e0f5168 Compare February 8, 2025 11:48
@iphydf iphydf marked this pull request as ready for review February 8, 2025 11:58
@Green-Sky Green-Sky modified the milestones: v0.2.22, v0.2.23 Oct 1, 2025
@iphydf iphydf modified the milestones: v0.2.23, v0.2.22 Oct 5, 2025
Instead of transitively loading them from dependencies, we should be
explicit about what each object needs. The downside of this is that it's
not clear whether the object and its dependency use the same common
dependency. The upside is that we don't expose those getters of internal
dependencies.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

refactor Refactoring production code, eg. renaming a variable, not affecting semantics

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants