Skip to content

Conversation

@letFunny
Copy link
Collaborator

  • Have you signed the CLA?

@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Jul 15, 2025

Command Mean [s] Min [s] Max [s] Relative
BASE 8.613 ± 0.027 8.567 8.657 1.00
HEAD 8.618 ± 0.037 8.558 8.683 1.00 ± 0.01

if err != nil {
return err
}
// Content created was not listed in a slice contents because extractInfo
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

[Comment for reviewer]: This was an optimization which was only skipping some variable assignment and an empty for loop. It is simpler if we remove it and continue processing the path normally rather than adding the logic for finding implicit conflicts twice.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ack.

Copy link
Contributor

@niemeyer niemeyer left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looking good. Only minors:

if err != nil {
return err
}
// Content created was not listed in a slice contents because extractInfo
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ack.

if mode, ok := createdNotListed[relPath]; ok && mode != o.Mode {
implicitConflicts = append(implicitConflicts, relPath)
}
createdNotListed[relPath] = o.Mode
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Isn't inSliceContents and createdNotListed opposites of each other? If so, let's please unify terminology.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@letFunny letFunny Jul 28, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I have changed inSliceContents to listed which I think is also much simpler and enough given the context of the function and the terminology. It also matches the rest of the comments were we generally use "listed".

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This was the correct one apparently? That literally says "in slice contents", right? The "contents" field under the "slices" key?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Sure, we can use that one, I just thought the other one will be too long: notInSliceContents.

Copy link
Contributor

@niemeyer niemeyer left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Please see replies to your comments.

Copy link
Contributor

@niemeyer niemeyer left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Just a trivial and LGTM, thanks for the work on this.

@niemeyer niemeyer merged commit ba4c08b into canonical:main Jul 28, 2025
19 checks passed
@letFunny letFunny deleted the warning-implicit-parents branch July 28, 2025 11:17
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants