Skip to content

Conversation

@martonvago
Copy link
Contributor

Description

This PR is an alternative to #122 . It implements suggestion 5 listed on the issue.

Closes #120

Needs an in-depth review.

Checklist

  • Formatted Markdown
  • Ran just run-all

check: Callable[[Any], bool]
type: str = "custom"
check_missing: bool = False
_field_name: str = field(init=False, repr=False)
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Not exposing this in the constructor

@martonvago martonvago moved this from Todo to In Review in Iteration planning Oct 20, 2025
@martonvago martonvago mentioned this pull request Oct 20, 2025
2 tasks
@martonvago martonvago marked this pull request as ready for review October 20, 2025 15:28
@martonvago martonvago requested a review from a team as a code owner October 20, 2025 15:28
@lwjohnst86
Copy link
Member

As per our discussions and #152, we're using #122 in favour of this PR. So I will close it.

@lwjohnst86 lwjohnst86 closed this Oct 27, 2025
@github-project-automation github-project-automation bot moved this from In Review to Done in Iteration planning Oct 27, 2025
@lwjohnst86 lwjohnst86 deleted the feat/custom-check-check-missing branch October 27, 2025 08:09
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

Archived in project

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Rules with type="required"

3 participants