Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Better type safety for DataRequestId, DataDefinitionId, ClientDataDefinitionId, etc #83

Open
EvenAR opened this issue Jul 7, 2023 · 0 comments
Open

Better type safety for DataRequestId, DataDefinitionId, ClientDataDefinitionId, etc #83

EvenAR opened this issue Jul 7, 2023 · 0 comments
Labels
enhancement

Comments

@EvenAR
Copy link
Owner

EvenAR commented Jul 7, 2023 •
edited
Loading

Today these are just aliases for number and provide no type safety at all. For instance, it should not be possible to pass a DataRequestId to the DataDefinitionId parameter of a function.

One way to improve the type safety is to make the types "opaque". A singleton class could be provided for generating new id's with the correct type.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
enhancement
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
1 participant
@EvenAR