refactor: Enable MustHaveReturnTypeFunctionRule StructArmed rule on system/Helpers - #10521
Open
samsonasik wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
Conversation
Member
Author
|
Ready to review/merge 👍 |
paulbalandan
approved these changes
Sep 4, 2026
paulbalandan
left a comment
paulbalandan
left a comment
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
A refactor please. Not sure if this can go to develop. Let's wait for @michalsn
samsonasik
changed the title
samsonasik
force-pushed
the
chore-enable-must-have-return-type-func
branch
from
September 4, 2026 12:44
c31d105 to
05a9cd7
Compare
Member
Author
|
@paulbalandan sure, I've updated PR title and commit to use |
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Description
Ths PR enable
MustHaveReturnTypeFunctionRuleStructArmed rule onsystem/Helpersand add the return type to them. Functions doesn't have parent/child to check so should be safe to apply.Just let me know if it needs to be marked as
refactor:)Checklist: