refactor: Remove dead block of code - #710
Merged
Merged
Conversation
Closed
Closed
dafeder
reviewed
May 20, 2024
dafeder
left a comment
dafeder
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@DannyvdSluijs doing my best to review this as I get familiar with the code. It looks to me like the removed case would be covered by the Rfc3339 class, and that all cases are covered in the FormatTest. So I would think if tests pass this is good. However, I don't see a test result for this PR; does CI run for PRs on this repo?
Collaborator
Author
I’ve seen this on other PRs in this repo as well. I’ll keep an eye out for this issues. For now I’ve amended the commit, creating a new commit hash which has started the pipeline. |
|
Well again a little insecure still about approving being so new to the codebase itself but lgtm? |
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Based on the original PR (#641) from Markus Staab it was found the incorrect order of arguments to be in a dead piece of code. The
strpos-call was added in ffc856d on 18/02/2016 whereas in 6474265 on 03/03/2016 the calling code of thevalidateDateTimewith anformatargument containing anuwas removed making this check void. So removing the code block would be best, hence this PR.