-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.8k
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
Fix Part of #10474: Enables strict typescript checks for some files - (8) #13204
Conversation
some title
merged-with-develop
Hi @mridul-netizen. Due to recent changes in the "develop" branch, this PR now has a merge conflict. Please follow this link if you need help resolving the conflict, so that the PR can be merged. Thanks! |
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.
Just a follow up to @kevintab95's comment otherwise LGTM
if (this._topicUrlFragment !== undefined) { | ||
return this._topicUrlFragment; | ||
} | ||
throw new Error('Topic Url Fragment is undefined'); |
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.
Do we throw errors in get methods in models normally? We expect validation methods to do these checks and report errors in the appropriate place.
I think it's fine to keep validation here. If this skips some sort of validation and ends up here, we would want to know. But, this should not be here in a getter. You should do this check in the setter. (If undefined for _topicUrlFragment is not a valid value, it shouldn't be allowed to set to undefined in the first place. Can you throw an error there?)
Unassigning @srijanreddy98 since the review is done. |
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.
LGTM for core/templates/domain/exploration/visualization-info.model.ts
. Thanks @mridul-netizen!
Unassigning @kevintab95 since they have already approved the PR. |
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.
Lgtm as codeowner
Hi @mridul-netizen. Due to recent changes in the "develop" branch, this PR now has a merge conflict. Please follow this link if you need help resolving the conflict, so that the PR can be merged. Thanks! |
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.
LGTM for code-owner files!
… some files - (8) (oppia#13204)" This reverts commit a84b5ff.
Overview
Essential Checklist
Proof that changes are correct
PR Pointers
Files Covered
PasteBin to Errors - link