Skip to content

(Proof Of Concept) Order Preservation for Parameter Guard#27

Closed
AdamSpeight2008 wants to merge 14 commits intoDotNetAnalyzers:masterfrom
AdamSpeight2008:vb-support_order_preserving
Closed

(Proof Of Concept) Order Preservation for Parameter Guard#27
AdamSpeight2008 wants to merge 14 commits intoDotNetAnalyzers:masterfrom
AdamSpeight2008:vb-support_order_preserving

Conversation

@AdamSpeight2008
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

It does do the task, but has a few bugs to find and iron out.
Sometime End Of Line is preserved. Comments are removed or copied.

Seem like we need that attach the trailing trivia to the closing Parenthesis of the Exception, not as I would think the statement.

@tugberkugurlu
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Thanks!

You need to clean up a little and rebase. You have a few commits which are already applied: you have this AdamSpeight2008@6a75089 and this has already made it in: eb7de9b

@tugberkugurlu
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@sharwell branch is not synced with the upstream dev branch as far as I can tell. That's what I mean by rebase. Is there any problem there? I'm not sure what you exactly mean by this comment 😄

@tugberkugurlu
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@AdamSpeight2008 thanks for the PR again. I really appreciate that you are taking the time. If I'm offending you or @sharwell in any way, I'm really sorry because that's not my intention here.

@sharwell I don't want anybody to focus on rebase operations but I at least expect synced PRs w/o merge conflicts. This PR is out of sync, cannot be reviewed and has merge conflicts. In other words, this PR is so confusing 😄

However, even if I did not combine these commits, your workflow rules would have caused the situation to appear anyway because #14 was merged before the VB branch was complete.

I really don't understand why. What I need is synced, w/o merge conflicts PR. this PR is unhealthy.

It seems that @sharwell understands the intention and the commits inside this PR. @sharwell: can you review and get this in if possible? If not, @AdamSpeight2008: please fix the conflicts, sync your feature branch with master and resubmit PR or force push.

@sharwell
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Yep, I'll take a look today.

@AdamSpeight2008 Do you mind if I force-push the result to your fork so this pull request is automatically updated?

@AdamSpeight2008
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Nope

@AdamSpeight2008
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Implements @Bartmax improvement and my tweak to the c# implementation

@AdamSpeight2008
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

I finally got to work,

@AdamSpeight2008
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Demo

@Bartmax
Copy link
Copy Markdown

Bartmax commented Dec 7, 2014

shouldn't use nameof(p1) instead of the string literal ?

@AdamSpeight2008
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

I would if VB.net's had. See #17

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.

4 participants