Make loop in IInputEvent more consistent and modern #4959
Merged
Conversation
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
zadjii-msft
added
the
Area-CodeHealth
miniksa
approved these changes
Mar 17, 2020
Contributor
|
Thanks! |
DHowett-MSFT
changed the title
DHowett-MSFT
added
the
AutoMerge
|
Hello @DHowett-MSFT! Because this pull request has the Do note that I've been instructed to only help merge pull requests of this repository that have been opened for at least 8 hours, a condition that will be fulfilled in about 5 hours 14 minutes. No worries though, I will be back when the time is right! 😉 p.s. you can customize the way I help with merging this pull request, such as holding this pull request until a specific person approves. Simply @mention me (
|
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
In IInputEvent, there are two for loops. One is a range based loop operating on "records", and the other is a classic for-loop doing the same. For consistency, the for-loop was changed into the more modern variation via a compiler refactoring, which has the exact same behavior as the other for-loop in the main function.
Yes, of course this was tested manually and with the unit tests.
Validation Steps
Unit testing passed. In addition, for the manual validation tests, I compared the output for sample values between the two loops ensuring the same results.