Skip to content

Rename iteration variable name in PersistenceProviderUnitTests for readability #3322

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

Closed
wants to merge 4 commits into from

Conversation

devholic22
Copy link
Contributor

Rename iteration variable name in PersistenceProviderUnitTests for readability

  • You have read the Spring Data contribution guidelines.
  • You use the code formatters provided here and have them applied to your changes. Don’t submit any formatting related changes.
  • You submit test cases (unit or integration tests) that back your changes.
  • You added yourself as author in the headers of the classes you touched. Amend the date range in the Apache license header if needed. For new types, add the license header (copy from another file and set the current year only).

In PersistenceProviderUnitTests toResourcePaths method, use iface in interfacesToImplement.

but in my opinion, targetInterface is better than iface for readability. (iface not means direct this variable is a unit of interfacesToImplement.)

In my guess, interface word is already used in java default words. (type name) so written in iface.

could you consider this suggestion?

(The two check boxes at the bottom do not seem to correspond to simple word changes, so I did not check them.)

…date iteration variable name in PersistenceProviderUnitTests for readability
@spring-projects-issues spring-projects-issues added the status: waiting-for-triage An issue we've not yet triaged label Jan 19, 2024
@mp911de mp911de self-assigned this Jun 13, 2024
@mp911de mp911de added type: task A general task and removed status: waiting-for-triage An issue we've not yet triaged labels Jun 13, 2024
mp911de pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 13, 2024
mp911de added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 13, 2024
Simplify code, refine constructor visibility.

See #3322
mp911de pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 13, 2024
mp911de added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 13, 2024
Simplify code, refine constructor visibility.

See #3322
@mp911de mp911de closed this in 7a1d5dc Jun 13, 2024
mp911de added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 13, 2024
Simplify code, refine constructor visibility.

See #3322
@mp911de
Copy link
Member

mp911de commented Jun 13, 2024

Thank you for your contribution. That's merged, polished, and backported now.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
type: task A general task
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants