-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 41
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
1303 add a note to teal_data_module
constructor's vignette
#1336
Conversation
…the reactivity should be handled
Code Coverage Summary
Diff against main
Results for commit: 4a6bbb1 Minimum allowed coverage is ♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results |
Unit Tests Summary 1 files 25 suites 8m 46s ⏱️ Results for commit 4a6bbb1. ♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results. |
Unit Test Performance Difference
Results for commit e217083 ♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results. |
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.
I understand that teal_transform_module
is an instance of teal_data_module
, which is probably why we use the term teal_data_module
here. However, since the conversations leading up to this PR have been more focused on teal_transform_module
, it would be better to keep these terms separate. teal_data_module
should refer to defining delayed data, while teal_transform_module
is for transforming data within the module.
Additionally, I think it would be better to include this information in the data-transform-as-shiny-module.Rmd
vignette, as it relates more directly to the transformation process.
We should also make it clear on what user need to do if they choose to use eventReactive
. I'm fine with directing user to the discussion link, but we should summarize it clearly for users too.
Hey, I have
|
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.
At first, I thought we should show some code if users were to use eventReactive
. But after thinking it over, if we're discouraging users from doing this, maybe it's best not to mention it at all.
LGTM!
Issue might be outdated when #1330 goes in |
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.
I don't think this is a good way. Please see the comment:
I think we should revisit, once we are done with #1341 |
I raised my opinion in the issue, I think more effort on the |
As discussed, the note would be helpful in the
teal_data_module
constructor's vignette #1303@donyunardi assigning you for the review as you said yesterday you might have a look at this one.