Provide default implementation for IHubFilter.InvokeMethodAsync #23968
Conversation
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
halter73
approved these changes
Jul 16, 2020
halter73
reviewed
Jul 16, 2020
| @@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ public interface IHubFilter | |||
| /// <param name="invocationContext">The context for the method invocation that holds all the important information about the invoke.</param> | |||
| /// <param name="next">The next filter to run, and for the final one, the Hub invocation.</param> | |||
| /// <returns>Returns the result of the Hub method invoke.</returns> | |||
| ValueTask<object> InvokeMethodAsync(HubInvocationContext invocationContext, Func<HubInvocationContext, ValueTask<object>> next); | |||
| ValueTask<object> InvokeMethodAsync(HubInvocationContext invocationContext, Func<HubInvocationContext, ValueTask<object>> next) => next(invocationContext); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It might be worth adding a simple test that verifies you don't have to implement InvokeMethodAsync.
JamesNK
reviewed
Jul 17, 2020
| @@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ public interface IHubFilter | |||
| /// <param name="invocationContext">The context for the method invocation that holds all the important information about the invoke.</param> | |||
| /// <param name="next">The next filter to run, and for the final one, the Hub invocation.</param> | |||
| /// <returns>Returns the result of the Hub method invoke.</returns> | |||
| ValueTask<object> InvokeMethodAsync(HubInvocationContext invocationContext, Func<HubInvocationContext, ValueTask<object>> next); | |||
| ValueTask<object> InvokeMethodAsync(HubInvocationContext invocationContext, Func<HubInvocationContext, ValueTask<object>> next) => next(invocationContext); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why are hub filters an interface with a default implementation rather than an abstract base class?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We're rebels. I actually think it's a good experiment to try this on
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not a fan of how people generally call base.FunctionName(); (and intellisense adds it automatically) with abstract base classes when the base class does nothing
|
/azp run |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 2 pipeline(s). |
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.
@halter73 mentioned we should probably add a default for this as well. It's not too hard to imagine filters being written that don't want to implement
InvokeMethodAsync.