Conversation
|
LGTM. Thanks for adding more! |
|
Do we also have some real read/write on fields, so we can check painless DefField class? Static fields don't help... Currently there is no way to test the code! |
|
This PR is really just to capture "easy wins". I know the problem there, but we should solve it differently IMO. I also omitted any date apis or similar here for the same reason. They are more complex. |
|
@uschindler So there were actually tests for this before, but they got removed when we decided to make Definition a singleton. It should be possible to have a dummy dictionary again for field tests, but this should probably be a separate issue. |
|
@jdconrad thanks for this. I think this is ok for now. I'd suggest to add some "undocumented" fake class for testing that is added to the Definition. |
Most of these improvements focus on the basic types:
We need to followup with docs improvements (its already out of date anyway). In general I think the way we present that needs to be re-organized completely. There is a lot more to do here, but these changes are all simple and easy.