datetime extension
#1276
datetime extension
#1276
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Shaobo He <shaobohe@amazon.com>
Signed-off-by: Shaobo He <shaobohe@amazon.com>
Signed-off-by: Shaobo He <shaobohe@amazon.com>
Signed-off-by: Shaobo He <shaobohe@amazon.com>
Signed-off-by: Shaobo He <shaobohe@amazon.com>
| { | ||
| fn into_restricted_expr(&self) -> RestrictedExpr { | ||
| self.clone().into() | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why not just implement Into?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I believe it's because of the trait object stuff I don't understand. See the comment above this trait.
| let long_op = if matches!(op, BinaryOp::Less) { | ||
| |x, y| x < y | ||
| } else { | ||
| |x, y| x <= y |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd probably start this arm with the match (arg1.value_kind(), arg2.value_kind()) and then compute long_op or ext_op on-demand. But I'm actually not clear on why we're using different variables at the moment neither... I would really like to see some comments here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I believe it's due to the type checker not being happy if I simply use one variable.
Signed-off-by: Shaobo He <shaobohe@amazon.com>
Signed-off-by: Shaobo He <shaobohe@amazon.com>
Signed-off-by: Shaobo He <shaobohe@amazon.com>
Signed-off-by: Shaobo He <shaobohe@amazon.com>
Signed-off-by: Shaobo He <shaobohe@amazon.com>
Signed-off-by: Shaobo He <shaobohe@amazon.com>
This reverts commit 3f2e39b.
Signed-off-by: Shaobo He <shaobohe@amazon.com>
Signed-off-by: Shaobo He <shaobohe@amazon.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I did not review the validator changes, would be good to get @john-h-kastner-aws review on those.
| /// Get the constructor and args that can reproduce this value | ||
| pub fn constructor_and_args(&self) -> (&Name, &[RestrictedExpr]) { | ||
| (&self.constructor, &self.args) | ||
| pub(crate) fn supports_operator_overloading(&self) -> bool { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
At the risk of adding yet another new-type wrapper around our identifier types, it looks like it might make more sense to have this be a function on an ExtensionType struct instead of the ExtensionValue struct.
Signed-off-by: Shaobo He <shaobohe@amazon.com>
Co-authored-by: Craig Disselkoen <cdiss@amazon.com> Co-authored-by: Adrian Palacios <73246657+adpaco-aws@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Andrew Wells <130512013+andrewmwells-amazon@users.noreply.github.com>
Signed-off-by: Shaobo He <shaobohe@amazon.com>
…ar into feature/shaobo/datetime
Signed-off-by: Shaobo He <shaobohe@amazon.com>
Signed-off-by: Shaobo He <shaobohe@amazon.com>
Signed-off-by: Shaobo He <shaobohe@amazon.com>
Signed-off-by: Shaobo He <shaobohe@amazon.com>
Signed-off-by: Shaobo He <shaobohe@amazon.com>
Description of changes
Implement RFC 80
Issue #, if available
Checklist for requesting a review
The change in this PR is (choose one, and delete the other options):
cedar-policy(e.g., addition of a new API).I confirm that this PR (choose one, and delete the other options):
I confirm that
cedar-spec(choose one, and delete the other options):cedar-spec, and how you have tested that your updates are correct.)I confirm that
docs.cedarpolicy.com(choose one, and delete the other options):cedar-docs. PRs should be targeted at astaging-X.Ybranch, notmain.)