refactor: misc refactoring prefer std algorithm, range for loops; fix broken loop #4593
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
gades
pushed a commit
to cosanta/cosanta-core
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 16, 2023
… broken loop (dashpay#4593) * fix: replace seemingly buggy loop with std::adjacent_find * Remove redundant variable declaration * use std::fill instead of a loop * remove a few raw for loops
gades
pushed a commit
to piratecash/pirate
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 9, 2023
… broken loop (dashpay#4593) * fix: replace seemingly buggy loop with std::adjacent_find * Remove redundant variable declaration * use std::fill instead of a loop * remove a few raw for loops
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Use some std algorithms instead of for loops, and range for loops instead of raw for loops. see individual commits.
Pay special attention to da7fc09, I believe the old loop is buggy, every iteration just sets firstNodeId, since bool first never gets set to false. This is a change in behavior.