Add CoverageJSON TypeAdapter to support generic loading of CoverageJSON #17
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This add support for a generic CoverageJSON type which you can use to validate any JSON against. It implements the root types that can form a CoverageJSON, as defined in the spec.
I've considered (and tested) the implementations listed in this detailed SO answer. In the end I've chosen for Option A.
Option B (Custom Root Type): Very noisy implementation, and forgetting your dealing with a proxy object. It's also not easy to use for validation purposes.
Option C (Union field + proxy constructor): The fake class (as function) is not very clean. It's also not easy use for validation.
For the (lightweight) purpose of validation, Option A seems to be the cleanest to use.