-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 219
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
[REFACTOR]: Spawn Call #1447
[REFACTOR]: Spawn Call #1447
Conversation
b352568
to
4f3ff0f
Compare
4f3ff0f
to
8469b00
Compare
47326eb
to
5002ed8
Compare
5002ed8
to
fbf0666
Compare
@amadolid Let's go ahead and merge this in. Can you add a mardown file that just document the current behavior? You can use the |
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.
Check comment above.
Made a quick tweak to the markdown. 🚢 |
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.
LGTM
PREVIOUS BEHAVIOR:
walker generic entry
=>node entries (generic/typed)
=> back towalker typed entry
=>walker typed exit
=> back tonode exits (generic/typed)
=> back towalker generic exit
REFACTORED BEHAVIOR:
walker generic entry
=>walker typed entry
=>node generic entry
=>node typed entry
=>node typed exit
=>node generic exit
=> back towalker typed exit
=>walker generic exit
In this approach, we limit the back and forth of execution to
walker -> node -> walker
. It can also make the execution more "declarative".It's also more direct if we plan in future to support the
with entry
andwith exit
approach