Skip to content
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

Refactor Event Processing Logic into Separate Function #1635

Conversation

stav-bentov
Copy link
Contributor

Encapsulated loop logic into a dedicated function processSingleFileEvent to isolate responsibilities and simplify the main code flow.

Copy link

codecov bot commented Jan 28, 2025

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 80.95238% with 4 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 71.01%. Comparing base (9071a5c) to head (8f5655b).
Report is 9 commits behind head on unstable.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
src/ae.c 80.95% 4 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##           unstable    #1635      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     70.85%   71.01%   +0.16%     
============================================
  Files           121      121              
  Lines         65169    65177       +8     
============================================
+ Hits          46176    46287     +111     
+ Misses        18993    18890     -103     
Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
src/ae.c 78.27% <80.95%> (+0.62%) ⬆️

... and 18 files with indirect coverage changes

Comment on lines +396 to +398
static void processSingleFileEvent(
aeEventLoop *eventLoop,
aeFiredEvent *firedEvent) {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
static void processSingleFileEvent(
aeEventLoop *eventLoop,
aeFiredEvent *firedEvent) {
static void processSingleFileEvent(aeEventLoop *eventLoop, aeFiredEvent *firedEvent) {

Copy link
Contributor

@zuiderkwast zuiderkwast left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't think this change is necessary. I vote to not merge it.

@zuiderkwast
Copy link
Contributor

Btw, hi Stav and thanks for contributing. :)

Sometimes not all maintainers agree. It can be a good idea to wait some time for more opinions and to discuss it, especially if you want to convince us about something important.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants