Remove unused AsciidoctorFileScanner #600
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What kind of change does this PR introduce? (check at least one)
What is the goal of this pull request?
AsciidoctorFileScannercontained old methods no longer used.Once removed a couple of constansts that could be moved remained.
So, this PR tries to organize things and remove the class.
Are there any alternative ways to implement this?
I could have created a single constants class, but I don't think creating this general usage components is good.
At the end, the only issue was
IGNORED_FILE_NAMES(docinfo patterns) which is used inCopyResourceProcessor(for process-asciidoc goal) andResourcesPatternBuilder(for refresh/http goals). The other constants have been made private since where used in single places.Are there any implications of this pull request? Anything a user must know?
no
Is it related to an existing issue?
Finally, please add a corresponding entry to CHANGELOG.adoc
Not relevant to mention.