Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Update getNodeDownloadUrl.ts #7242

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Update getNodeDownloadUrl.ts #7242

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

CodingRule
Copy link
Contributor

Technically the same thing I did to PR #7241

@CodingRule CodingRule requested a review from a team as a code owner November 19, 2024 14:44
@CodingRule
Copy link
Contributor Author

If the comments are wrote wrongly please tell me!

@vercel Vercel
Copy link

vercel bot commented Nov 19, 2024 •
edited
Loading

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

Name Status Preview Updated (UTC)
nodejs-org ✅ Ready (Inspect) Visit Preview Nov 19, 2024 2:46pm

RedYetiDev
RedYetiDev reviewed Nov 19, 2024
View reviewed changes
apps/site/util/getNodeDownloadUrl.ts
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looking at the comparison, I think the switch statement is much cleaner.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ah okay

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Any good paths I could take into making this better than the switch cases ? (;

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What's wrong with the switch statement?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah true ig.
Thx anyway for review

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

No problem! Feel free to look at the issues tab for things that need to be fixed. "Help wanted" and "good first issue" are places to start.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looking at the comparison, I think the switch statement is much cleaner.

Same feeling

RedYetiDev
RedYetiDev requested changes Nov 19, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@RedYetiDev RedYetiDev left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Based on my comment above, I dont think this should land in its current form.

@CodingRule CodingRule closed this Nov 20, 2024
ovflowd
ovflowd reviewed Nov 20, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@ovflowd ovflowd left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Not gonna lie, I actually was a fan of this PR, it looked way cleaner than the switch statement :)

Feel free to reopen it.

@RedYetiDev
Copy link
Member

RedYetiDev commented Nov 20, 2024 •
edited
Loading

I'm still -1. I think that the switch statement is cleaner, but if you disagree, I won't block.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@AugustinMauroy AugustinMauroy AugustinMauroy left review comments

@ovflowd ovflowd ovflowd left review comments

@RedYetiDev RedYetiDev RedYetiDev requested changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
4 participants
@CodingRule @RedYetiDev @ovflowd @AugustinMauroy