JanZerebecki added a comment. > When things have a conceptual dependency, it is not bad design to have a code > dependency there as well.
As far as I understand that, it argues for tight coupling (i.e. Sites::getSingleton() where the URL is used). Arguing for loose coupling might read like this: "When things have a conceptual dependency they should share an interface and the dependency should be injected. The origin of dependency, and the implementation should have a code dependency on the interface, not on each other." > Relying on global state like that for conveniance is what MediaWiki is doing > all over the place, with horrible results for testability and modularity. > so there is no state (global or local) involved and you can indeed use static > code if you like State was here referring to names that are in scope. Static code is global, you can not replace a call to Sites::getSingleton() with a call to a mock without changing the global named Sites. Thus using static code makes it harder to test units in isolation, where the dependencies are replaced with mocks. TASK DETAIL https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T118860 EMAIL PREFERENCES https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/ To: JanZerebecki Cc: mkroetzsch, adrianheine, hoo, thiemowmde, aude, Jonas, JanZerebecki, JeroenDeDauw, Aklapper, StudiesWorld, daniel, Wikidata-bugs, Mbch331 _______________________________________________ Wikidata-bugs mailing list Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs
