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’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add support for Key annotation in TypeObjectFactory [12674] #2262

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Dec 17, 2021

Conversation

richiware
Copy link
Member

TypeObjectFactory currently only supports @key, but not @Key. This PR fixes this.

Signed-off-by: Ricardo González <ricardo@richiware.dev>
@richiware richiware changed the title Add support for Key annotation in TypeObjectFactory Add support for Key annotation in TypeObjectFactory [12674] Oct 13, 2021
@MiguelCompany MiguelCompany self-requested a review October 14, 2021 08:29
Copy link
Member

@MiguelCompany MiguelCompany left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Changes look good to me, though "Key" is not a standard annotation.
If we consider it as a valid extension, then a test for it should be added.

Signed-off-by: Ricardo González Moreno <ricardo@richiware.dev>
@richiware
Copy link
Member Author

Changes look good to me, though "Key" is not a standard annotation. If we consider it as a valid extension, then a test for it should be added.

I've increased an already existing unit test. I've tested this addition fails on current master branch.

Copy link
Member

@MiguelCompany MiguelCompany left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@MiguelCompany MiguelCompany merged commit 387e901 into master Dec 17, 2021
@MiguelCompany MiguelCompany deleted the bugfix/support-Key-annotation branch December 17, 2021 08:09
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants