Skip to content
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

fix: do not invalidate implicit copybook cache on re-analysis #2354

Conversation

ap891843
Copy link
Contributor

@ap891843 ap891843 commented Jun 27, 2024

Do not invalidate implicit copybook cache on re-analysis. But these needs to be invalidated if configuration changes happen. Also, when a dialec is registered

How Has This Been Tested?

Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Provide instructions so we can reproduce. Please also list any relevant details for your test configuration

  • No regressions should be introduced.
  • Some times if a cobol program has a lot of remote copybooks, diagnostics for a missing implicit copybooks are shown. Which clears upon re analysis. These diagnostics should not appear.

Checklist:

  • Each of my commits contains one meaningful change
  • I have performed rebase of my branch on top of the development
  • I have performed a self-review of my own code
  • I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
  • My changes generate no new warnings
  • I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
  • New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
  • I have checked my code and corrected any misspellings

Do not invalidate implicit copybook cache on re-analysis. But these needs to be invalidated if configuration changes happen. Also, when a dialec is registered

Signed-off-by: Aman Prashant <aman.prashant@broadcom.com>
@ap891843 ap891843 merged commit f473617 into eclipse-che4z:development Jun 28, 2024
17 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants