-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 338
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
450 stumpless get priority string #476
450 stumpless get priority string #476
Conversation
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## latest #476 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 90.40% 90.22% -0.18%
==========================================
Files 47 47
Lines 4388 4410 +22
Branches 588 592 +4
==========================================
+ Hits 3967 3979 +12
- Misses 286 288 +2
- Partials 135 143 +8 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
Since the macros always have underscore in them, the NULL verification is not needed.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Excellent work! There is one last change needed: please add a test that passes and invalid prival in, and add some error handling to ensure the response is sane. I personally think a NULL response in this case makes the most sense, but since the facility and severity string functions do not do this, I will defer to you for this change. Before the v3.0.0 release I will likely refactor all of them to return NULL in the event of an error so that the scenario is more clear.
The deadlock was not related to your changes, and is the second time I've seen it. I created #477 to capture the logs and remind myself to go back and look at this, but for now I only mention it to you as something you don't need to worry about.
I've just added a commit with invalid privals checking and testing. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Just a tweak on how an invalid prival is checked, and this should be good to go.
b4e84b0
to
5a72426
Compare
5a72426
to
349de16
Compare
Thanks very much for finishing the resolution for this one! |
This is a continuation from the other opened PR #457.
Since I don't have the permissions to commit to the other contributor's fork, I've decided to cherry pick them and publish a new PR.
I hope this is the proper way to do it.
Please, let me know if any adjustments are needed in this branch.