-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 632
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
Removing incorrect comment about a warning #1132
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Madelyn Olson <madelyneolson@gmail.com>
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## unstable #1132 +/- ##
============================================
- Coverage 70.63% 70.62% -0.02%
============================================
Files 114 114
Lines 61710 61716 +6
============================================
- Hits 43586 43584 -2
- Misses 18124 18132 +8
|
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.
It was added in light publish iirc. I wasn't sure why there would be a warning without it, but i didn't look into it.
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.
Agreed that this was an anti-pattern and we should switch to serverPanic()
.
There is a lot of bad legacy usage of `default:` with enums, which is an anti-pattern. If you omit the default, the compiler will tell you if a new enum value was added and that it is missing from a switch statement. Someone mentioned on another PR they used `default:` because of this warning, so just removing it, but might create an issue to do a wider cleanup. Signed-off-by: Madelyn Olson <madelyneolson@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: naglera <anagler123@gmail.com>
There is a lot of bad legacy usage of `default:` with enums, which is an anti-pattern. If you omit the default, the compiler will tell you if a new enum value was added and that it is missing from a switch statement. Someone mentioned on another PR they used `default:` because of this warning, so just removing it, but might create an issue to do a wider cleanup. Signed-off-by: Madelyn Olson <madelyneolson@gmail.com>
There is a lot of bad legacy usage of
default:
with enums, which is an anti-pattern. If you omit the default, the compiler will tell you if a new enum value was added and that it is missing from a switch statement.Someone mentioned on another PR they used
default:
because of this warning, so just removing it, but might create an issue to do a wider cleanup.