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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
Validate C# DefineConstants input #9612
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Validate C# DefineConstants input #9612
Changes from 3 commits
b3df917
2548986
d955d17
f96abbe
298c98f
2330881
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
Is this right?
Logically,
(A && B) || B
is the same as justB
.Where
A
isallowsEmptyKey
andB
is!string.IsNullOrEmpty(decodedEntryValue)
.If I'm not mistaken,
allowsEmptyKey
does nothing here.I think a
!
should be removed:But the fact that this passed the unit tests makes me wonder if the tests need improving or if the check can just be removed here altogether.
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.
Is this comment still correct? With the changes here, these implementations have diverged.
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.
I'm not sure it's safe to store this state here. These providers are generally safe to call concurrently. By tracking this state here, that's no longer the case. It might work most of the time, but it makes me a little nervous. I'll spend some more time here to see if I can come up with any suggestions.
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.
I've removed this state and instead handle collapsing multiple values down into one inside the CPS control, as provided by a regex rule in editor metadata. Thanks, your comment prompted me to rethink how this worked.