Added not wasm config for get_ancestors #386
Conversation
|
Great job! No new security vulnerabilities introduced in this pull request |
Codecov Report❌ Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #386 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 78.55% 78.50% -0.05%
==========================================
Files 276 276
Lines 27483 27500 +17
==========================================
Hits 21588 21588
- Misses 5895 5912 +17 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
…lectionViewNodeItem
| ) -> Option<Arc<CollectionViewNodeItem>> { | ||
| self.tree | ||
| .get_item_by_id(collection_id) | ||
| .get_item_by_id(collection_view.id.unwrap_or_default().into()) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
❓ Are we ok with swallowing an empty or invalid id here? Is that the goal of this?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Long term I think we would split CollectionView similar to folders so that ID is required, and you have a separate DTO for creating them.
I wouldn't be particularly concerned about ID being None here.
|
…nfig for get_ancestors (bitwarden/sdk-internal#386)
🎟️ Tracking
PM-25167
📔 Objective
Adds conditional code for when wasm feature isn't enabled for get_ancestors.
⏰ Reminders before review
team
🦮 Reviewer guidelines
:+1:) or similar for great changes:memo:) or ℹ️ (:information_source:) for notes or general info:question:) for questions:thinking:) or 💭 (:thought_balloon:) for more open inquiry that's not quite a confirmedissue and could potentially benefit from discussion
:art:) for suggestions / improvements:x:) or:warning:) for more significant problems or concerns needing attention:seedling:) or ♻️ (:recycle:) for future improvements or indications of technical debt:pick:) for minor or nitpick changes