-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 46
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
Some initial refactorings and cleanup for combining packages and TPLs (#63) #526
Merged
bartlettroscoe
merged 5 commits into
master
from
63-combined-package-data-structures-init-cleanup
Sep 19, 2022
Merged
Some initial refactorings and cleanup for combining packages and TPLs (#63) #526
bartlettroscoe
merged 5 commits into
master
from
63-combined-package-data-structures-init-cleanup
Sep 19, 2022
Conversation
This file contains 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
While working on #63 I noticed that this file was not even being checked anymore. Therefore, I removed the file and I removed the code that read this file in (and then did nothing with it).
While looking over this function I realized it had a few problems: * The documentation said it would assert that the list var must be defined but the code just did assert_defined(VARIABLE_NAME) which only asserted that the function parameter 'VARAIBLE_NAME' was defined (which is always defined) instead of the list variable ${VARIABLE_NAME}. Therefore, I just took out the assert and updated the documentation to not even mention asserting. * The function made it sound like the input value of the bool var was important but it is not. The input value is not even checked. The variable is only set if the list is non-empty. Therefore, I changed the name from <printedVarInOut> (PRINTED_VAR_OUT) to <printedVarOut> (printedVarOut). I had to remove the assert_defined() because there was some existing usage that was actaully passing in some undefined list vars and breaking TriBITS.
Noticed this while working on #63.
Noticed these while doing #63.
Hello @KyleFromKitware, can you please give this a quick review if you have some time today? I will need to create the next huge PR against this one to show unique diffs to the PR. |
+1 |
rabartlett1972
approved these changes
Sep 19, 2022
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.
@KyleFromKitware approved in #526 (comment).
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
This PR contains a few misc commits that I created while working on the refactorings and extensions for #63.
I did not want to mix these in with the huge PR that will contain a bunch of renames and will touch thousands of lines of files.
Notes to Reviewers