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鈥檒l occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

feat(mixin): add mixin config option #741

Merged
merged 4 commits into from Nov 21, 2019
Merged

feat(mixin): add mixin config option #741

merged 4 commits into from Nov 21, 2019

Conversation

watson
Copy link
Member

@watson watson commented Nov 14, 2019

@mcollina here's the "context" PR as we talked about at NodeConf. I ended up calling the feature "mixin" instead, as I think that suits the use-case better. But feel free to suggest other names 馃槂

Copy link
Member

@mcollina mcollina left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Would you mind to validate that it is a function?

@jsumners
Copy link
Member

Wouldn't this function need to be synchronous? That should be called out in the docs.

I'm not enamored with the name "mixin" but I don't have a better suggestion either.

@watson
Copy link
Member Author

watson commented Nov 20, 2019

@mcollina

Fixed 馃憤

@jsumners:

Wouldn't this function need to be synchronous? That should be called out in the docs.

Yes, it should be synchronous. My intent was that this was obvious from the docs, as it says that the function "must return an object" and that "the properties of the returned object will be added to the logged JSON". So while I didn't use the word synchronous directly, I thought that the usage could easily be derived. But if you like me to specifically state that it should be called synchronous, I'll do that 馃憤

@watson watson requested a review from mcollina November 20, 2019 12:26
@jsumners
Copy link
Member

I think it is better to be explicit because people do weird things.

Copy link
Member

@mcollina mcollina left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@watson
Copy link
Member Author

watson commented Nov 20, 2019

@jsumners I've updated the docs 馃憤

@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Feb 3, 2022

This pull request has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed. Please open a new issue for related bugs.

@github-actions github-actions bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Feb 3, 2022
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants