chore: Split up buildAllCommandsByCfg for readability and modularity #5245
+155
−145
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
lukemassa
requested review from
chenrui333,
nitrocode and
X-Guardian
and removed request for
a team
dosubot
bot
added
the
refactoring
lukemassa
changed the title
lukemassa
changed the title
lukemassa
force-pushed
the
split_up_build_all_commands
branch
from
5b5fab6 to
cf6a0c2
Compare
lukemassa
force-pushed
the
split_up_build_all_commands
branch
5 times, most recently
from
6aa4ebd to
a605577
Compare
Signed-off-by: Luke Massa <lukefrederickmassa@gmail.com>
lukemassa
force-pushed
the
split_up_build_all_commands
branch
from
a605577 to
8de7422
Compare
jamengual
approved these changes
Jan 19, 2025
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
what
Split up
buildAllCommandsByCfginto several helper functions.why
I went in to make a change to this function and found it to be very complicated (250+ lines!), so wanted to break it up before working on it. I imagine a lot of logic has been added to this important function over time, seems like it's worth fixing up.
Pulling out the
shouldSkipClonealso made it clear that the repoCfg determined in that function is different from the one used to determine the merged projects. In the previous code that wasn't clear, just a comment saying "this is discarded" that if you missed you might end up reusing accidentally.It also allowed me to refactor the code to make better use of the "happy path" pattern to prevent nested else statements.
tests
I just relied on the existing unit tests, I'm happy to write more if people think that's necessary
references
I'm in the process of working on #859, this refactor will make that work easier.