chore: Apply a proper logic for NotificationQueue.ts #33851
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
|
Looks like this PR is not ready to merge, because of the following issues:
Please fix the issues and try again If you have any trouble, please check the PR guidelines |
|
|
|
The line `worker(counter++)` passed the previous state of the counter, I mean befor increment. So it is the same like `worker(0); couner = counter + 1`
Lao-Ax
force-pushed
the
fix-NotificationQueue
branch
from
3bbe686 to
d75d42b
Compare
Lao-Ax
changed the title
KevLehman
changed the title
KevLehman
approved these changes
Dec 13, 2024
|
thx @Lao-Ax , good catch ;) |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
It's a quite minor change. But the current variant crashes the terminal in my synthetic tests.
In the current code the line
worker(counter++)passes the previous state of the counter, I mean before the increment. So, it is literally always the same asworker(0); counter = counter + 1.But it looks like that the intention was:
worker(counter + 1)to start a new worker with next number.Issue(s)
CORE-851