C++: Add word missing from change note #18281
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated no comments.
Comments suppressed due to low confidence (2)
cpp/ql/lib/change-notes/released/3.0.0.md:9
- The class name
NonThrowingFunctionshould match the identifier in parentheses (semmle.code.cpp.models.interfaces.NonThrowing). It should beNonThrowinginstead ofNonThrowingFunction.
* The `NonThrowingFunction` class (`semmle.code.cpp.models.interfaces.NonThrowing`) has been deprecated. Please use the `NonCppThrowingFunction` class instead.
cpp/ql/lib/CHANGELOG.md:9
- The class name
NonThrowingFunctionshould be corrected toNonThrowingin the parenthesis to match the actual class name.
* The `NonThrowingFunction` class (`semmle.code.cpp.models.interfaces.NonThrowing`) has been deprecated. Please use the `NonCppThrowingFunction` class instead.
Tip: If you use Visual Studio Code, you can request a review from Copilot before you push from the "Source Control" tab. Learn more
cpp/ql/lib/CHANGELOG.md
Outdated
| ### Deprecated APIs | ||
|
|
||
| * The `NonThrowing` class (`semmle.code.cpp.models.interfaces.NonThrowing`) has been deprecated. Please use the `NonCppThrowingFunction` class instead. | ||
| * The `NonThrowingFunction` class (`semmle.code.cpp.models.interfaces.NonThrowing`) has been deprecated. Please use the `NonCppThrowingFunction` class instead. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should the bit in brackets be semmle.code.cpp.models.interfaces.NonThrowing or semmle.code.cpp.models.interfaces.NonThrowing.NonThrowingFunction?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I read it as referring to the file, but I'm fine with whatever you think is best.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Slight preference for the full path, but I don't have strong feelings either way.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Changed it to semmle.code.cpp.models.interfaces.NonThrowing.NonThrowingFunction (note that this dismissed your approval).
I don't think it's worth propagating this to all the places where the change note has been copied, but at least this is correct now going forward.