core(simulator): clearer intermediate timing types #11744
Merged
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
connorjclark
approved these changes
Dec 3, 2020
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
seems good to me.
I experimented with using a type predicate fn, but it didn't look like the slight deduplication it'd offer is worth it
I had some trouble separating all of these new functions from the actual meat of the class. Maybe all of these could be pulled into a new NodeTimings class?
| * @property {number} [timeElapsed] | ||
| * @property {number} [timeElapsedOvershoot] | ||
| * @property {number} [bytesDownloaded] | ||
| * @typedef NodeTimingComplete |
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
IMO typedefs at the top of the file is a better place.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Summary
@connorjclark I'm requesting your feedback here since you brought this up :)
There were many ways this could be done, but this felt like a decent balance between duplication in the right places, reading clarity, and type safety. I expect others might have different ideas of the tradeoffs though :)
Related Issues/PRs
fixes #11692