-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 97
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
Ordering in format.combine matters #104
Comments
I agree, the README does a very poor job of conveying this and should be changed. There is a concept of "finalizing formatters" (that exact phrase only appears once in the whole README), which must be placed last in the I've only messed around with a few of the formatters, I don't know how they behave if you have multiple "finalizing formatters" in the combine chain, or if the library works without one at the end (I believe it's required). |
+1 to that point. The README does not explain it. |
While I find it intuitive that order matters, I don't see the point of even having “finalizing” and “non-finalizing” formatters. To my mind, that just hamstrings composability. I just came across this when I tried to combine |
I just struggled with this and finally figured out that the order matters. Please update the docs. |
This probably just needs a documentation enhancement but want to call this out. After several hours of fighting with the formatter I realized that ordering matters when defining a format.
If this is already covered in the documentation and I am missing it then we can close this otherwise id like to propose an addendum to the docs to make this more clear. The examples are correct and it took me finally copy/pasting an example into my project to see the timestamp working to realize what was happening.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: