Skip to content
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

refactor(rubygems): Use Result type for caching control flow #23266

Merged

Conversation

zharinov
Copy link
Collaborator

@zharinov zharinov commented Jul 9, 2023

Changes

  • Replace ad-hoc result union type with dedicated Result<T, E> type
  • Errors re-thrown are still intact in this PR

Context

Documentation (please check one with an [x])

  • I have updated the documentation, or
  • No documentation update is required

How I've tested my work (please select one)

I have verified these changes via:

  • Code inspection only, or
  • Newly added/modified unit tests, or
  • No unit tests but ran on a real repository, or
  • Both unit tests + ran on a real repository

@zharinov zharinov marked this pull request as ready for review July 10, 2023 12:31
@zharinov zharinov requested review from rarkins and viceice July 10, 2023 12:32
@zharinov zharinov requested a review from viceice July 11, 2023 14:54
Copy link
Member

@viceice viceice left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

otherwise LGTM

@rarkins rarkins enabled auto-merge July 11, 2023 15:37
@rarkins rarkins added this pull request to the merge queue Jul 11, 2023
Merged via the queue into renovatebot:main with commit 37ebff7 Jul 11, 2023
34 checks passed
@rarkins rarkins deleted the refactor/rubygems-cache-result-type branch July 11, 2023 16:55
@renovate-release
Copy link
Collaborator

🎉 This PR is included in version 36.7.1 🎉

The release is available on:

Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀

@github-actions github-actions bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Aug 11, 2023
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants