[earthboundkid]

A state machine should have more than states. It also needs actions which cause transitions. The API should be about writing out which new state an action causes given a base state. Eg you have a modal with a button and it can be clicked or dismissed. In the open state, click and dismiss cause close, and in the closed state, click causes open. Anyway, the whole thing is only valuable once you have actions.

[BSEdlMMldESB]

you mean like:

> Add valid transitions between states:

> `fsm.AddRule(CustomStateEnumA, CustomStateEnumB)`

> `fsm.AddRule(CustomStateEnumB, CustomStateEnumC)`

[earthboundkid]

No.

The README has an example of shipment, so let’s think about that. It is a bad example though because it just has packed → shipped → delivered, which is not a real business process.

Let’s say you’re a seller, as opposed to UPS or FedEx. The first thing that happens is a customer makes an order. What happens next? Well, the customer can cancel their order. Or the order can be sent and then the customer can ask for a refund. Let’s try to model it:

Ordered + cancelled → cancelled

Ordered + warehouse packing → packed

Packed + cancelled → cancelled

Packed + warehouse handed package to shipper → shipped

Shipped + cancelled → too late, it’s still in the shipped state

Shipped + return request → awaiting return

Awaiting return + received return → refund

Shipped + received return → no RMA, so no refund. No state change.

Shipped + 30 days → archived

Etc. I am too lazy to do the full model, but you start to get the idea. The important thing is that actions happen from outside the system and then they cause state transitions based on what the current state is. Sometimes the system just stays in the state it is already is in, and sometimes the system moves backwards. Some actions can’t happen in certain states (can’t get something back before it goes out, can’t dismiss a closed modal dialog), but that’s not because of business logic but because of the real world. The business logic only enforces itself, not the world.

[earthboundkid]

No.

The README has an example of shipment, so let’s think about that. It is a bad example though because it just has packed → shipped → delivered, which is not a real business process.

Let’s say you’re a seller, as opposed to UPS or FedEx. The first thing that happens is a customer makes an order. What happens next? Well, the customer can cancel their order. Or the order can be sent and then the customer can ask for a refund. Let’s try to model it:

Ordered + cancelled → cancelled Ordered + warehouse packing → packed Packed + cancelled → cancelled Packed + warehouse handed package to shipper → shipped Shipped + cancelled → too late, it’s still in the shipped state Shipped + return request → awaiting return Awaiting return + received return → refund Shipped + received return → no RMA, so no refund. No state change. Shipped + 30 days → archived

Etc. I am too lazy to do the full model, but you start to get the idea. The important thing is that actions happen from outside the system and then they cause state transitions based on what the current state is. Sometimes the system just stays in the state it is already is in, and sometimes the system moves backwards. Some actions can’t happen in certain states (can’t get something back before it goes out, can’t dismiss a closed modal dialog), but that’s not because of business logic but because of the real world. The business logic only enforces itself, not the world.

[Someone]

I don’t like that name.

IMO, AddValidTransition would be way better. I think I would go for AddTransition, though. It’s not as if there’s also a way to add invalid transitions.

[infogulch]

They should be named and other transitions disallowed.

[packetslave]

Commenters like you are why people don't share thing. Why make something available for free when someone like you is just going to come along and shit on it?

[akira2501]

If your only reasoning behind releasing an open source project is to receive uncritical accolades just for producing open source, then I think you need to examine your motives and seriously question why you expected this deference in the first place.

[jawr]

Commenters like you are why people don’t give honest feedback. Why review something for free when someone like you is unable to accept honest feedback even if it is critical.

[spicybright]

If you post your project on a public forum with a comment section, you should expect some people to be critical and suggest things, no matter what it is or how much it costs.

Perhaps the real issue is commenters like GP is why YOU don't share things?