WARNING: THIS SITE IS A MIRROR OF GITHUB.COM / IT CANNOT LOGIN OR REGISTER ACCOUNTS / THE CONTENTS ARE PROVIDED AS-IS / THIS SITE ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DISPLAYED CONTENT OR LINKS / IF YOU FOUND SOMETHING MAY NOT GOOD FOR EVERYONE, CONTACT ADMIN AT ilovescratch@foxmail.com
Skip to content

Conversation

@frigoref
Copy link
Member

@frigoref frigoref commented Oct 1, 2025

No description provided.

@frigoref
Copy link
Member Author

frigoref commented Oct 1, 2025

Slice from PR #13619

@DanVanAtta DanVanAtta removed their assignment Nov 23, 2025
Copy link
Member

@DanVanAtta DanVanAtta left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think we should approach this fix by enhancing the clone-data-manager rather than "hiding" it.

For historical context, there was previously a method that was: cloneGameData()

Later, someone found that the history could be omitted for a faster clone, the API then became: cloneGameData(true|false). Rather than do that, a builder object was created. This approach was intended to be expanded for any other options. So, we have instead cloneGameData(Options.builder().withHistory(true).build()). Verbose, but an otherwise nice API.

Then.. came along seek. Rather than adding an option, a boolean parameter was added..

The API I think we want is:

cloneGameData(Options.builder().withHistory().withSeek().build())

A) move the 'seek' flag into options

B) remove the boolean variable in the builder (this might be a v2 change, i expect there to be some tests with dependencies on the variable)

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.

3 participants