Use more specific names for coverage variables to avoid clashes #299
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
peterebden
force-pushed
the
better-cover-var-names
branch
from
24b0a87 to
7fef7aa
Compare
chrisnovakovic
approved these changes
Sep 9, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
We see a couple of cases in the main plz repo where we seem to be picking up existing variables named things like
goCoverageFile; I can only assume there is some kind of prefix search happening in 1.23.This makes them
_plz_goCoverwhich I think we can reasonably assume no sensible Go program is going to use.