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

POC module wiring with uber-go dig #9529

Closed
wants to merge 24 commits into from
Closed

Conversation

aaronc
Copy link
Member

@aaronc aaronc commented Jun 16, 2021

Description

Module wiring using uber's dig dependency injection container.

There are two approaches to module wiring demonstrated here:

I think I pretty strongly prefer the first Provide* method approach for most module development because it just looks cleaner to my eyes. (Also it could be amenable to static analysis a la google/wire in the future but I'm not even sure it's worth it at this point.) I do think the fx Option approach is good for lower-level "non-module" providers.


Author Checklist

All items are required. Please add a note to the item if the item is not applicable and
please add links to any relevant follow up issues.

I have...

  • included the correct type prefix in the PR title
  • added ! to the type prefix if API or client breaking change
  • targeted the correct branch (see PR Targeting)
  • provided a link to the relevant issue or specification
  • followed the guidelines for building modules
  • included the necessary unit and integration tests
  • added a changelog entry to CHANGELOG.md
  • included comments for documenting Go code
  • updated the relevant documentation or specification
  • reviewed "Files changed" and left comments if necessary
  • confirmed all CI checks have passed

Reviewers Checklist

All items are required. Please add a note if the item is not applicable and please add
your handle next to the items reviewed if you only reviewed selected items.

I have...

  • confirmed the correct type prefix in the PR title
  • confirmed ! in the type prefix if API or client breaking change
  • confirmed all author checklist items have been addressed
  • reviewed state machine logic
  • reviewed API design and naming
  • reviewed documentation is accurate
  • reviewed tests and test coverage
  • manually tested (if applicable)

@github-actions github-actions bot added C:CLI C:x/genutil genutil module issues labels Jun 17, 2021
@robert-zaremba robert-zaremba self-requested a review June 17, 2021 14:15
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant