Use next instead of break; avoid terminating whole loop
#27499
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
We want to avoid terminating the whole loop here, because it will cause parameters that should be removed to not be removed, since we are terminating early. In this specific case, `param2` is processed before `param1` due to the reversing of `route.parts`, and since `param2` fails the check on this line, it would previously cause the whole loop to fail, and `param1` would still be in `parameterized_parts`. Now, we are simply calling `next`, which is the intended behavior. Introduced by 8ca8a2d. Fixes rails#27454.
|
Backported in a7d512e |
rafaelfranca
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 29, 2016
Use `next` instead of `break`; avoid terminating whole loop
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Summary
We want to avoid terminating the whole loop here, because it will cause
parameters that should be removed to not be removed, since we are
terminating early. In this specific case,
param2is processed beforeparam1due to the reversing ofroute.parts, and sinceparam2failsthe check on this line, it would previously cause the whole loop to
fail, and
param1would still be inparameterized_parts. Now, we aresimply calling
next, which is the intended behavior.Other Information
Introduced by 8ca8a2d.
Fixes #27454.