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

HERE BE DRAGONS #128

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

HERE BE DRAGONS #128

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

ntoll
Copy link
Contributor

@ntoll ntoll commented Nov 8, 2018

This PR MUST NOT BE MERGED. It's evidence that we need the proposed solution of @heartsucker via discussions happening on #100. This refactoring started so well (was enjoying reading through the implementation and felt good progress could be made), but as I tried to make the code work, I was running up against all the problems we've discussed: passing references all over the place, the logic growing into a mega-blob-of-code, over-mocking in tests etc. In the end it's been very frustrating.

So, this PR should NOT be merged, rather, it's evidence that the Qt-ish event-driven approach we've taken so far is not going to work.

My suggestion is we refactor this all out via the message bus proposal... as in, "When is the best time to plant a tree? 100 years ago... otherwise, now".

Here be dragons... 🐉

@heartsucker
Copy link
Contributor

I'm going to close this PR since it was opened to demonstrate issues in the client. Since we're moving toward more use of signals/slots, I think we've taken sufficient note of the points raised here.

@heartsucker
Copy link
Contributor

I'm leaving this branch around for now in case anyone is curious about it, but I think after 30 days it's def safe to delete.

@sssoleileraaa sssoleileraaa deleted the refactor-api-requests branch May 26, 2020 18:17
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.

2 participants