Fix ambiguous register_default_module order#102
Merged
Conversation
github-actions Bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 21, 2021
Fix ambiguous register_default_module order
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Fix ambiguous
register_default_moduleorderAttention: This is a breaking change.
This MR implements a policy on the order of multiple realized
register_default_module-calls.Description
Imagine, you register multiple default-modules: Each such calls checks for an event, and, if not registered, loads a given module and may overwrite its settings.
Setup:
Problem:
In case multiple such calls ask for the same event, the order has been unspecified until now.
In more detail, there are in-fact distinct orders of actions that need to be define in order to use this feature consistently.
module1. Which settings should be used in casemodule1has already been loaded?Previously:
module1will be loaded).var1would get the value1234).New Behavior:
The previous solution is counter-intuitive, as a later call does not "overwrite" the choice of modules.
(For instance, imagine several such commands in a dependency chain. The most-recent call such define the module to be loaded.)
Thus, this MR changes the order in the following way:
module2).var1would get the value4321).Check all before creating this PR: