Summary: | Name our exceptions consistently | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Koha | Reporter: | Jonathan Druart <jonathan.druart> |
Component: | Architecture, internals, and plumbing | Assignee: | Bugs List <koha-bugs> |
Status: | In Discussion --- | QA Contact: | Testopia <testopia> |
Severity: | enhancement | ||
Priority: | P5 - low | CC: | kyle, m.de.rooy, martin.renvoize, nick, tomascohen |
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | All | ||
See Also: | https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=21337 | ||
GIT URL: | Change sponsored?: | --- | |
Patch complexity: | --- | Documentation contact: | |
Documentation submission: | Text to go in the release notes: | ||
Version(s) released in: | Circulation function: |
Description
Jonathan Druart
2018-10-26 14:04:27 UTC
CCing some of you, how do you feel about that? Any good practices you have in mind? It would be good to have something on the wiki. Agreed it would be nice to build a consistent pattern and add a guideline to help work towards that... we also don't always subclass and so exceptions are hard to find sometimes which I think is what leads to the nearly duplicate ones you have discovered. I'd even go so far as to ask the question of whether it's worth us starting to take on a more consistent approach with our objects in general.. We already actually have Moo as a dependency, we could start using some of its recommendations today if we wanted to for type checking etc. We're also doing a poor mans version of method signatures in a few cases now.. perhaps we should start advocating something there too? (In reply to Martin Renvoize from comment #2) > I'd even go so far as to ask the question of whether it's worth us starting > to take on a more consistent approach with our objects in general.. We > already actually have Moo as a dependency, we could start using some of its > recommendations today if we wanted to for type checking etc. We're also > doing a poor mans version of method signatures in a few cases now.. perhaps > we should start advocating something there too? To clarify that a bit.. I'm thinking of something along the lines of Function::Parameters + Type::Tiny |