feat: provide an example of typed resource type #368
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
This is something that I wanted to try for a while - attach the resource type directly to the resource.Type constant. The (partial) result is this PR. While it may look interesting, I don't think that we should merge it ATM. Because: 1. There are a LOT of `Naked()` calls around the code. 2. This will require a lot of refactoring. Even here it required a lot of places to be changed. 3. I'm not sure that this level of generic abuse is worth it (will it increase the resulting binary size because of the bloat?). Still, this is the good starting point if anyone is interested in how it could be done. Signed-off-by: Dmitriy Matrenichev <dmitry.matrenichev@siderolabs.com>
|
This PR is stale because it has been open 45 days with no activity. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This is something that I wanted to try for a while - attach the resource type directly to the resource.Type constant. The (partial) result is this PR. While it may look interesting, I don't think that we should merge it ATM.
Because:
Naked()calls around the code.Still, this is the good starting point if anyone is interested in how it could be done.