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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
feat: add
allowProperties
option to require-atomic-updates #15238feat: add
allowProperties
option to require-atomic-updates #15238Changes from 2 commits
4a821de
d861b29
eface64
a6dd310
cecf22d
4aeec27
f301694
0d718a8
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think we can simplify this a bit:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It may also be helpful to explicitly call out the difference between local and global variables hazards with regards to this rule.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I wanted to avoid the word "calculated", as that may be interpreted as if there must be a non-trivial expression that calculates the new value, and that the old value must be directly used in that expression (for example,
result = result + await something
). We had complaints that assignments such asx = "foo"
should never be reported because there is no calculation, and the old value does not contribute to the new value. This rule reports anyread x -> await -> write x
flow, even if the write is a trivialx = "foo"
, because the old value may have been used in a condition that determines whether or notx = "foo"
should be executed.This could be interpreted as:
I wanted to emphasize that
x
may have changed outside of this execution flow, while it was awaiting in step 2.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Maybe “resolved” then?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I updated this paragraph now, please take a look.