Skip to content

refactor: remove unnecessary new Promise wrappers #1110

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Merged
relu91 merged 1 commit into from
Oct 10, 2023
Merged

refactor: remove unnecessary new Promise wrappers #1110

relu91 merged 1 commit into from
Oct 10, 2023

Conversation

@JKRhb
Copy link
Member

@JKRhb JKRhb commented Oct 9, 2023 •
edited
Loading

This PR contributes to resolving #569. There are a few instances of the return Promise pattern left that were a bit difficult to resolve, though, so I am not sure whether we should keep the issue open?

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 9, 2023 •
edited
Loading

Codecov Report

Attention: 64 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (7cbe593) 75.54% compared to head (3489ea5) 75.67%.
Report is 2 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files 
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #1110      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   75.54%   75.67%   +0.12%     
==========================================
  Files          80       80              
  Lines       16164    16118      -46     
  Branches     1513     1507       -6     
==========================================
- Hits        12211    12197      -14     
+ Misses       3914     3882      -32     
  Partials       39       39
Files Coverage Δ
packages/binding-http/src/http-server.ts 83.30% <100.00%> (+0.05%) ⬆️
packages/binding-netconf/src/async-node-netconf.ts 54.76% <ø> (-1.06%) ⬇️
packages/binding-netconf/src/netconf-client.ts 65.55% <100.00%> (+0.17%) ⬆️
packages/binding-http/src/http-client-impl.ts 66.26% <82.35%> (-0.33%) ⬇️
packages/binding-mbus/src/mbus-client.ts 66.66% <50.00%> (+3.44%) ⬆️
packages/binding-mqtt/src/mqtt-client.ts 75.24% <0.00%> (+1.10%) ⬆️
packages/cli/src/cli-default-servient.ts 70.73% <10.52%> (+1.35%) ⬆️
packages/binding-file/src/file-client.ts 27.95% <0.00%> (+2.71%) ⬆️

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@JKRhb JKRhb marked this pull request as ready for review October 9, 2023 17:09
danielpeintner
danielpeintner approved these changes Oct 10, 2023
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@danielpeintner danielpeintner left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I looked trough the changes and they seem all fine by me 👍

I would also argue after merging this PR we should close #569.

relu91
relu91 approved these changes Oct 10, 2023
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@relu91 relu91 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks good! regarding the issue linked, I think it might be difficult to be sure that every non-necessary promise it has been removed. I remember finding an eslint extension... maybe we could resolve it once the extension is in place and the non-convertible cases are correctly opted out.

@relu91
Copy link
Member

relu91 commented Oct 10, 2023

Given we have two approvals I'm merging, let's wait for the eslint rule before closing #569

@relu91 relu91 merged commit 4c3c203 into eclipse-thingweb:master Oct 10, 2023
@JKRhb JKRhb deleted the async-promise branch October 10, 2023 19:40
@JKRhb
Copy link
Member Author

JKRhb commented Oct 10, 2023 •
edited
Loading

Looks good! regarding the issue linked, I think it might be difficult to be sure that every non-necessary promise it has been removed. I remember finding an eslint extension... maybe we could resolve it once the extension is in place and the non-convertible cases are correctly opted out.

That sounds good :) I updated the PR description before your merge so that #569 will stay open.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@relu91 relu91 relu91 approved these changes

@danielpeintner danielpeintner danielpeintner approved these changes

@sebastiankb sebastiankb Awaiting requested review from sebastiankb sebastiankb is a code owner

@egekorkan egekorkan Awaiting requested review from egekorkan egekorkan is a code owner

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@JKRhb @relu91 @danielpeintner