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

Use next_node blocks in energy-grants-calculator #2064

Merged
merged 11 commits into from
Nov 11, 2015

Conversation

chrisroos
Copy link
Contributor

We've agreed to consistently use next_node {} to define our next node rules. Having a single way of defining the rules will hopefully make Smart Answers easier to develop and maintain.

This will ultimately allow us to remove the predicate code (define_predicate, on_condition, next_node_if etc).

Expected observable changes

  • None

@floehopper floehopper self-assigned this Nov 11, 2015
@floehopper
Copy link
Contributor

Other than my minor comment, this LGTM 👍

I've replaced `define_predicate` with `next_node_calculation` in an attempt to
keep the code as similar as possible. I've had to update the names used by
`next_node_calculation` as the question marks cause problems when the state
object is converted to a hash in preparation for rendering the ERB templates.
I've replaced `define_predicate` with `next_node_calculation` in an attempt to
keep the code as similar as possible. I've had to update the names used by
`next_node_calculation` as the question marks cause problems when the state
object is converted to a hash in preparation for rendering the ERB templates.
I've replaced `define_predicate` with `next_node_calculation` in an attempt to
keep the code as similar as possible. I've had to update the names used by
`next_node_calculation` as the question marks cause problems when the state
object is converted to a hash in preparation for rendering the ERB templates.
I've replaced `define_predicate` with `next_node_calculation` in an attempt to
keep the code as similar as possible. I've had to update the names used by
`next_node_calculation` as the question marks cause problems when the state
object is converted to a hash in preparation for rendering the ERB templates.
I've replaced `define_predicate` with `next_node_calculation` in an attempt to
keep the code as similar as possible. I've had to update the names used by
`next_node_calculation` as the question marks cause problems when the state
object is converted to a hash in preparation for rendering the ERB templates.
@chrisroos chrisroos force-pushed the use-next-node-blocks-in-energy-grants-calculator branch from 557a459 to 8175a28 Compare November 11, 2015 16:28
@chrisroos
Copy link
Contributor Author

I've rebased on master and force pushed in preparation for merging.

chrisroos added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 11, 2015
…-grants-calculator

Use next_node blocks in energy-grants-calculator
@chrisroos chrisroos merged commit 86cd44b into master Nov 11, 2015
@chrisroos chrisroos deleted the use-next-node-blocks-in-energy-grants-calculator branch November 11, 2015 16:32
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.

2 participants