Skip to content

Refactor/concealer 2 #1497

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

Merged
merged 19 commits into from
Jan 9, 2025
Merged

Refactor/concealer 2 #1497

merged 19 commits into from
Jan 9, 2025

Conversation

yamacir-kit
Copy link
Collaborator

@yamacir-kit yamacir-kit commented Dec 23, 2024

Description

Abstract

The package concealer code was refactored. (continuation of #1488.)

Background

See #1488 description.

Details

Reducing Member Functions

Several member functions were removed for the same purpose as in #1488. Below is the background and policy for this as described in #1488.

Member functions that are only used by certain member functions have been changed to function local functions. Making them private member functions was also an option, but we decided not to do so. Based on our experience in maintenance over the past few years, the cost of understanding where a certain member function is being called from is a burden both in terms of code modification and code review. This is just a matter of preference. I don't mind changing function-local functions to private member functions at some point, so I'm doing it this way for now to make refactoring following this pull request easier.

References

Destructive Changes

None.

Known Limitations

None.

@yamacir-kit yamacir-kit added refactor bump patch If this pull request merged, bump patch version of the scenario_simulator_v2 labels Dec 23, 2024
@yamacir-kit yamacir-kit self-assigned this Dec 23, 2024
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Dec 23, 2024

Checklist for reviewers ☑️

All references to "You" in the following text refer to the code reviewer.

  • Is this pull request written in a way that is easy to read from a third-party perspective?
  • Is there sufficient information (background, purpose, specification, algorithm description, list of disruptive changes, and migration guide) in the description of this pull request?
  • If this pull request contains a destructive change, does this pull request contain the migration guide?
  • Labels of this pull request are valid?
  • All unit tests/integration tests are included in this pull request? If you think adding test cases is unnecessary, please describe why and cross out this line.
  • The documentation for this pull request is enough? If you think adding documents for this pull request is unnecessary, please describe why and cross out this line.

Copy link

sonarqubecloud bot commented Jan 8, 2025

@yamacir-kit yamacir-kit requested a review from HansRobo January 8, 2025 08:02
@yamacir-kit yamacir-kit marked this pull request as ready for review January 8, 2025 08:14
@yamacir-kit yamacir-kit merged commit 2f7a478 into master Jan 9, 2025
17 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bump patch If this pull request merged, bump patch version of the scenario_simulator_v2 refactor
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants