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.

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

[chore] small changes missed in previous dereferencer.GetAccount() PRs #1467

Conversation

NyaaaWhatsUpDoc
Copy link
Member

  • I/we have read the GoToSocial contribution guidelines.
  • I/we have discussed the proposed changes already, either in an issue on the repository, or in the Matrix chat.
  • I/we have performed a self-review of added code.
  • I/we have written code that is legible and maintainable by others.
  • I/we have commented the added code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas.
  • I/we have made any necessary changes to documentation.
  • I/we have added tests that cover new code.
  • I/we have run tests and they pass locally with the changes.
  • I/we have run go fmt ./... and golangci-lint run.

internal/federation/dereferencing/account.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

if processing, ok := d.derefAvatars[accountID]; ok {
// we're already dereferencing it, nothing to do.
return processing.AttachmentID(), nil
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Perhaps before returning, it's worth calling processing.LoadAttachment to make sure that the attachment will really be in the database for the caller to select with the ID; it's idempotent anyway I think so it should be fine.

internal/federation/dereferencing/account.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@NyaaaWhatsUpDoc NyaaaWhatsUpDoc merged commit 6ac1dda into superseriousbusiness:main Feb 10, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants