-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3k
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
Refactor FXIOS-7301 [Swiftlint] Remove 1 closure_body_length violation from MainMenuState.swift and decrease threshold #23991
Refactor FXIOS-7301 [Swiftlint] Remove 1 closure_body_length violation from MainMenuState.swift and decrease threshold #23991
Conversation
accountData: state.accountData, | ||
accountIcon: state.accountIcon | ||
) | ||
return handleViewDidLoadAction(state: state) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It looks good to me, only thing i see that basically handleViewDidLoadAction
and handleUpdateAccountHeaderAction
implement the same state as default state.
@adudenamedruby what do you think if we default those 2 action directly in the default case ? so we can delete this two action and the related handle methods.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
handleUpdateAccountHeaderAction
looks different because it's passing in the action, so it's not the same as handleViewDidLoadAction
unless I'm missing something?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ah true sorry Rou i didn't see the action, yes then they are different. Then i guess we could leave it as is, so in case view did load action changes in the future, we already have the handler
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'll review this soon. I need to talk to some colleagues about thoughts on this, as, given this is a Redux pattern thing, we should try and be consistent, overall, about how we structure some of this stuff. There's nothing wrong with the PR, just a team discussion.
Client.app: Coverage: 32.4
Generated by 🚫 Danger Swift against 021ae93 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Heya @ionixjunior. So we've talked, and decided that we're good to go with the approach in this PR. There's just some minor changes needed and then we can push it through. THanks for your patience, and your hard work!!!
@FilippoZazzeroni I'm going on PTO, if you wouldn't mind taking this over the finish line when @ionixjunior pushes their fixes |
d974233
to
021ae93
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGMT 🎉 🎉 great work!!
@ionixjunior i'm trying to find a way to merge this PR, since i see @adudenamedruby still needs to approve since it asked for changes in first place |
@FilippoZazzeroni no worries at all, and thank you for letting me know. |
;) |
📜 Tickets
Jira ticket
Github issue
💡 Description
This PR removes 1
closure_body_length
violation from theMainMenuState.swift
file. Also, this PR decrease the warning and error threshold to 68.This PR is part of a series of PRs described here #16442 (comment) and here #16442 (comment).
📝 Checklist
You have to check all boxes before merging
@Mergifyio backport release/v120
)