fix: client-twitter: fix ENABLE_ACTION_PROCESSING logic #1463
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
![github-actions[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/15368?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hi @zkvm! Welcome to the ai16z community. Thanks for submitting your first pull request; your efforts are helping us accelerate towards AGI. We'll review it shortly. You are now a ai16z contributor!
zkvm
changed the title
shakkernerd
approved these changes
Dec 26, 2024
odilitime
changed the title
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Relates to:
Risks
Low
Background
Setting
ENABLE_ACTION_PROCESSING=falsein.envfile will not work asenableActionProcessingwill always be non-nullish no matterENABLE_ACTION_PROCESSINGset totrueorfalse.What does this PR do?
Update the code so
ENABLE_ACTION_PROCESSINGwould work as expected. This fix also is consistent with #1392What kind of change is this?
Bug fixes
Documentation changes needed?
No
Testing
Where should a reviewer start?
Detailed testing steps