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.

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

Map output file and type name to custom string #84

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

mkubliniak
Copy link
Contributor

Adding possibility to map types and file names with a mapping function to allow different naming schemas.

E.g., by us, we uppercase the first letter of the exported variable name and add Types suffix to the filename.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Apr 8, 2021

Codecov Report

Merging #84 (b81e8df) into master (3439265) will decrease coverage by 0.26%.
The diff coverage is 90.00%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master      #84      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   98.53%   98.27%   -0.27%     
==========================================
  Files           7        7              
  Lines         342      347       +5     
  Branches      107      108       +1     
==========================================
+ Hits          337      341       +4     
- Misses          5        6       +1     
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
src/types.ts 100.00% <ø> (ø)
src/analyseSchemaFile.ts 98.14% <80.00%> (-1.86%) ⬇️
src/index.ts 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 3439265...b81e8df. Read the comment docs.

@mrjono1
Copy link
Owner

mrjono1 commented Apr 8, 2021

Another good looking change, I'll check it out too

@mrjono1
Copy link
Owner

mrjono1 commented May 1, 2021

I forgot to say I have had a look at this and I like the idea, I have branched of this and added some tests to it and made the custom function do a bit more. I had some issues getting the code back to github, I'll try working on it again.

@mutantcornholio
Copy link

Can we go back to this idea? I'd gladly help, if any help needed here

@mrjono1
Copy link
Owner

mrjono1 commented Nov 9, 2022

yes, I still think this is a great idea. here is the branch I started based on this code master...name-function
I can't remember what I was doing here

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants