feat: support new username system

[Aldiwildan77]

Problem

closes #1386

Unit Test Check

[RiskyFeryansyahP]

nit

[FedorLap2006]

While I don't think we had done this before, I think it's a good idea to put all table tests under a subtest (with the name being something along the lines of "String()" or "Conversion to a string").

[FedorLap2006]

Also, please note the checks.

[Aldiwildan77]

While I don't think we had done this before, I think it's a good idea to put all table tests under a subtest (with the name being something along the lines of "String()" or "Conversion to a string").

yap, do we need a standardization related to the unit test? I think all features will need this since the package become bigger

[Aldiwildan77]

any update for this @FedorLap2006 ?

[cheesycod]

Same, this is kinda needed because of global display names

[Aldiwildan77]

I've updated this code, please review it again. Thanks, @FedorLap2006

[FedorLap2006]

Additionally, not quite sure about the separation of EndpointDefaultAvatar into two funcs. There's an alternative solution, which would match API more here - supplying an index into a single EndpointDefaultAvatar func and computing it in AvatarURL.

However, it's quite late, so I'll decide on that tomorrow.

[Aldiwildan77]

Additionally, not quite sure about the separation of EndpointDefaultAvatar into two funcs. There's an alternative solution, which would match API more here - supplying an index into a single EndpointDefaultAvatar func and computing it in AvatarURL.

However, it's quite late, so I'll decide on that tomorrow.

okay, so keep the EndpointDefaultAvatar and filter on those function right?

[FedorLap2006]

Additionally, not quite sure about the separation of EndpointDefaultAvatar into two funcs. There's an alternative solution, which would match API more here - supplying an index into a single EndpointDefaultAvatar func and computing it in AvatarURL.
However, it's quite late, so I'll decide on that tomorrow.

okay, so keep the EndpointDefaultAvatar and filter on those function right?

Basically, but with a couple more changes. See my comment above.

[Aldiwildan77]

I've updated this code, please review it again. Thanks, @FedorLap2006

[FedorLap2006]

I might make the change myself tho, since I understand that everyone wants to have this change 😅

[Aldiwildan77]

I might make the change myself tho, since I understand that everyone wants to have this change 😅

😅Hahah thanks for the changes. Glad to know for the new update

[FedorLap2006]

Want to give a bit of explanation behind my last commit:

After reading into the documentation and asking around, I've found that user should have only "0" discriminator, therefore I decided to remove the handling (and tests) of "" case, alongside isMigrated func, since it's not going to be needed for a simple == check

Additionally, with a bit of consideration, I've decided to move the comment, since it's probably going to be better if we explain the "0" case, instead of the normal one, which everyone is already used to.

[FedorLap2006]

And this one - I decided to switch the article to more general version, but decided to undo it, as the "0" part is explained only in developer version

[FedorLap2006]

Thanks for your contribution!

[Aldiwildan77]

Want to give a bit of explanation behind my last commit:

After reading into the documentation and asking around, I've found that user should have only "0" discriminator, therefore I decided to remove the handling (and tests) of "" case, alongside isMigrated func, since it's not going to be needed for a simple == check

Additionally, with a bit of consideration, I've decided to move the comment, since it's probably going to be better if we explain the "0" case, instead of the normal one, which everyone is already used to.

I see, so just simply compare for the "0" value of the discriminator.

[Aldiwildan77]

Thanks for your contribution!

Ur welcome, glad to know if there are many cases that can be improved