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

feat(fluttium_interfaces): refactor to use addons semantics instead of actions #204

Open
wants to merge 5 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

wolfenrain
Copy link
Owner

@wolfenrain wolfenrain commented Mar 11, 2023

Status

READY

Description

Refactor to addons semantics instead of actions, part of #197

Type of Change

  • ✨ New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
  • 🛠️ Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • ❌ Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
  • 🧹 Code refactor
  • ✅ Build configuration change
  • 📝 Documentation
  • 🗑️ Chore

@wolfenrain wolfenrain changed the title feat(fluttium_interfaces): refactor to use addons semantics instead o… feat(fluttium_interfaces): refactor to use addons semantics instead of actions Mar 11, 2023
@renancaraujo
Copy link
Collaborator

Looking good

Copy link
Collaborator

@felangel felangel left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Nit but technically isn’t it “add-on” which would mean in Dart it should be addOn or addOns?

@wolfenrain
Copy link
Owner Author

wolfenrain commented Mar 27, 2023

Nit but technically isn’t it “add-on” which would mean in Dart it should be addOn or addOns?

Oh. Well dang, now I have to rethink the wording because I dont like addOns or add_ons for the fluttium.yaml

After careful consideration I have decided to keep it as addons as that is acceptable within the context (according to wikipedia)

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.

3 participants