Fix conditional procedures with lambdas - #59
Merged
stas merged 1 commit intoFeb 21, 2020
Merged
Conversation
3 tasks
Contributor
Author
stas
approved these changes
Feb 21, 2020
Collaborator
|
Thanks @attilahorvath 🙇♂️ |
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
What is the current behavior?
Conditional procedures for scalars and relationships don't work when used with lambdas, for example:
These currently throw an error:
ArgumentError: wrong number of arguments (given 2, expected 1).This is very similar to the
&:procshorthand issue I've been working on at #58.What is the new behavior?
This change fixes the behavior to be able to use lambdas as well as
Procs with either one or two parameters.This also includes the arity check for lambdas, which could be extracted to a common place.
Checklist
Please make sure the following requirements are complete:
features)