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

Issue: #269 Least effort implementation of a clearable Architecture cache #270

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jun 15, 2024

Conversation

thojaw
Copy link

@thojaw thojaw commented Jun 10, 2024

This is a least effort implementation of a clearable Architecture cache. This will allow calls to ArchitectureCache.Instance.Clear() from external sources in scenarios where a uniqueness of the ArchitectureCacheKey during the runtime of the consuming app cannot be guaranteed and thus, the Cache needs to be cleared between executions of the ArchBuilder resp. `ArchLoader´.

Least effort implementation of a clearable Architecture cache

Signed-off-by: Thomas Haid <[email protected]>
@codecov-commenter
Copy link

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 56.70%. Comparing base (fabf95b) to head (b5f9cc1).

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #270   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   56.70%   56.70%           
=======================================
  Files         254      254           
  Lines       22841    22842    +1     
  Branches     1938     1938           
=======================================
+ Hits        12952    12953    +1     
  Misses       9334     9334           
  Partials      555      555           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@mak638 mak638 merged commit d956504 into TNG:main Jun 15, 2024
8 checks passed
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