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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
notif: package info indirection #1143
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
notif: package info indirection #1143
Changes from all commits
fead234
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.
Bumping #1143 (comment)
Let's include a
assert(debugLog(…))
here with aTODO(log)
comment.It would be helpful to structure this with an if-statement first.
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.
makes sense!
I also thought of adding it at first, but incase packageInfo becomes null, it would stop the execution which is ahead of the assert statement. Wouldn't that interrupt our test?
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.
Ideally the comment shouldn't be needed here, as the test code itself would be self-explanatory in most cases.
It would be better to have comments on the exact places where something might not be obvious to a reader.
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.
This check doesn't seem right. Because the
debugDefaultTargetPlatformOverride
doesn't get updated, the block inside never gets executed. The other tests use this because they usetestAndroidIos
instead oftest
.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.
nit:
Please also check for other spots for issues like this.
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 found these instructions in testAndroidIos function :
final origTargetPlatform = debugDefaultTargetPlatformOverride;
addTearDown(() => debugDefaultTargetPlatformOverride = origTargetPlatform);
debugDefaultTargetPlatformOverride = TargetPlatform.iOS;
what do you think of replicating them in the above test. It will look something like this:
prepareStore();
connection.prepare(json: {});
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.
Usually this is called at the beginning of the test.
addTearDown
registers a callback function that gets called when the test is finished and "teared down", so there is no need to place it near the end.