Tighter null checks #2107
Merged
Tighter null checks #2107
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
A number of the assertion tests weren't testing the case where `null` is passed as the target
BobrImperator
approved these changes
Jun 17, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
While looking over #2101 I noticed a bug that it introduced when
matchesSelector()ordoesNotMatchSelector()are run on anulltarget, so this PR extends the test coverage to include anulltarget for those assertions as well as all the others that didn't already test that case.Having
strictNullChecksenabled also would have caught the bug, and the project was pretty close to being able to enable them, so I made some changes to allow it.I'm happy to split these out into separate PRs if desired, or change this syntax if we don't like nested terniary operators 😄