-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 464
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.
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
feat(platforms): adding isDeprecated option to providers, reject verification #3087
Conversation
95afddc
to
ed9a75d
Compare
6d5405b
to
9aee965
Compare
|
||
// Hide if deprecated and score is 0 | ||
const checkHiddenByDeprecation = () => | ||
provider.isDeprecated && parseFloat(stampScores[provider.name] || "0") <= 0; | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
do checkHiddenByCustomization
and checkHiddenByDeprecation
need to be functions?
Why not compute the boolean value of the flag and store it in flags like isHiddenByCustomization
and isHiddenByDeprecation
?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Just to take advantage of short circuiting, especially if we add more conditions
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The question is what is cheaper?
a. to define a 2 functions on each iteration
b. or use if / else construct instead the short-circuit construct ...
fixes #3034