Allow registering multiple hooks of the same type#695
Closed
Allow registering multiple hooks of the same type#695
Conversation
added 3 commits
March 6, 2024 13:57
…e the ability to append. Also, make usre the hook.apply works when the hook is an array
Member
|
Closing this pull request. Will use PR #696 instead |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Note: there is an alternative approach in another PR that I consider cleaner than the one in this PR (#695).
This PR stores hooks in
Hook.luainternally as tables. It also adds the additional possibility of appending hooks to this table: if the argument passed tohook.registeris a table, it gets appended. If it is a single function, it overwrites what was there. @rtmclay I'm not 100% sure if this is what you meant yesterday in the call by providing an alternative interface, but this was my understanding - if not, feel free to correct me.It can be tested with this simple
SitePackage.lua:I made this PR since I think it most closely matches what @rtmclay meant yesterday in the call. However, I feel the alternative PR is cleaner in terms of code, and I prefer that it is a more explicit approach.
Anyway, those are my 2 cents, curious to hear what you think.