refactor ♻️ allow properties input in checks #999
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…roperties-input-in-checks
|
@martonvago there's a bunch of conflicts, could you resolve them? |
|
@lwjohnst86 ooh, it got a bit confused, should be okay now! |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description
This PR makes the suggestion of having check functions in Sprout accept both
dicts andPropertiesobjects.I thought of this when I was writing up the guide for check functions and kept having to transform each
Propertiesobject into adictbefore using it in an example.Not strictly necessary and maybe we don't want it, but here it is 🥇
This PR needs a medium-depth review.
Checklist
just run-all