UPSTREAM PR #2492: Refactor tree::peel_to_entry to make the intent more obvious#36
Open
UPSTREAM PR #2492: Refactor tree::peel_to_entry to make the intent more obvious#36
tree::peel_to_entry to make the intent more obvious#36Conversation
loci-dev
had a problem deploying
to
PROD__AL_DEMO
GitHub Actions
Failure
loci-dev
force-pushed
the
main
branch
5 times, most recently
from
8b02847 to
1bf0519
Compare
loci-dev
force-pushed
the
main
branch
3 times, most recently
from
cdbe120 to
78a7ab5
Compare
loci-dev
force-pushed
the
main
branch
4 times, most recently
from
9c2e45d to
5124e99
Compare
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Note
Source pull request: GitoxideLabs/gitoxide#2492
To me the intent is clearer this way, and I don't think we do any more or less work than before. Even though
selfis aTree, thefind()calls can invalidate this already so tracking the data ID instead of the last tree ID felt odd.The first commit is separate just to fix what I asked about in my comment in #2489. The MSRV check passes, so I think it's fine :D