Improving return with defers blocking #1349
Merged
Conversation
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
9a20529 to
1d78df5
Compare
e3ba1aa to
ec7099e
Compare
ec7099e to
54b13af
Compare
flimzy
approved these changes
Nov 13, 2024
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't see anything that jumps out at me, but it's hard to validate this sort of code visually. I'm happy with merging it, but maybe @nevkontakte wants to take a look too.
nevkontakte
approved these changes
Nov 13, 2024
nevkontakte
approved these changes
Nov 17, 2024
|
LGTM, thank you! |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Currently, if there are any defers and any returns in a function, that return is considered blocking because the defer may be blocking.
I changed the analysis to keep a running list of defers and assign return statements with the defers that may affect them. There are still some false positive cases (blocking when blocking isn't actually needed) however there should be a lot less false positives after this change.
I also fixed a formatting issue that somehow was missed by a linter.