-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.3k
refactor(cli): reduce some nesting code #14844
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
base: dev
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Package Changes Through 1bb9c35There are 9 changes which include tauri with minor, @tauri-apps/cli with minor, tauri-cli with minor, tauri-utils with patch, tauri-build with patch, tauri-macos-sign with patch, tauri-bundler with minor, tauri-runtime-wry with minor, tauri-runtime with minor Planned Package VersionsThe following package releases are the planned based on the context of changes in this pull request.
Add another change file through the GitHub UI by following this link. Read about change files or the docs at github.com/jbolda/covector |
| let Some(event_path) = event.paths.first() else { | ||
| continue; | ||
| }; |
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.
Looks a bit odd only using the first path? Could maybe use a comment.
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.
Not sure why, I simply did a Convert to guarded return refactor using rust analyzer here
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.
Clearly a behavior-preserving refactor, just a drive-by remark.
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.
Seems like it's from #12164 when we switched to debouncer full which uses it for rename events, I'll see if we want to handle it here
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'll see if we want to handle it here
i don't see why we would want to
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.
For also accounting the renamed to file?
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.
haha yes obviously. I can't remember what I was getting at anymore, just that I think there's little benefit in behavior compared to the lines of code added - since it's just 5 or so you can ignore me and go on with your day x)
No description provided.