This repository has been archived by the owner on Sep 1, 2022. It is now read-only.
refactor(getCookie): retrieve memoized directly #335
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
There’s no need to check if the value exists before retrieving it, as the default behaviour of `get` on a Map is to return undefined if the key is missing. If the key exists, return it directly. This allows us to reach true 100% coverage, as the missing code path was unreachable.
sndrs
suggested changes
Apr 19, 2022
sndrs
approved these changes
Apr 25, 2022
|
🎉 This PR is included in version 5.0.0 🎉 The release is available on: Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀 |
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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 does this change?
There’s no need to check if the value exists before retrieving it, as the default behaviour of
geton a Map is to return undefined if the key is missing. If the key exists, return it directly.Why?
This allows us to reach true 100% coverage, as the missing code path was unreachable.
From the duplicate issue #328