-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 9.4k
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
core(fr): convert tags-blocking-first-paint gatherer #12527
Conversation
@@ -82,7 +83,7 @@ async function collectTagsThatBlockFirstPaint() { | |||
}; | |||
}); | |||
|
|||
/** @type {Array<ScriptTag>} */ | |||
/** @type {ScriptTag[]} */ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
one step at a time... 🎉
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
🙄 the existing line is five months old. The decision we made was in part to prevent each person who touches a file doing a mass switch so it doesn't flip back and forth every five months. I'm fine rediscussing this (again), but as it is, this is kind of frustrating.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I have to agree. I mean changing them when you're already rewriting a block of code is one thing, but these are just completely untouched defs that are being changed here exclusively for preference.
If it's a war you want...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
+1 to above points, lets revert. i was just jestin'
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
In my defense I had a function _getArtifact
which used []
and wanted the rest of the file to match. I ended up removing the function so I'm fine reverting.
In the future, should I just adhere to whatever preference is already in the file?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
In the future, should I just adhere to whatever preference is already in the file?
Probably worth discussing in eng sync to make sure we all understand the same thing, but my understanding of where we landed was use whichever you prefer in new code you (re)write, leave all others untouched and unmentioned in review.
Totally no malice interpreted from this btw, consistency is a great reason to clean up code that you find, it's just that we've already abandoned the consistency argument for these 😉
Ref #11313