Interactive refactor actions#53915
Merged
andrewbranch merged 2 commits intomicrosoft:mainfrom Apr 19, 2023
Merged
Conversation
Collaborator
|
Thanks for the PR! It looks like you've changed the TSServer protocol in some way. Please ensure that any changes here don't break consumers of the current TSServer API. For some extra review, we'll ping @sheetalkamat, @mjbvz, @zkat, and @joj for you. Feel free to loop in other consumers/maintainers if necessary |
typescript-bot
added
Author: Team
For Uncommitted Bug
jakebailey
approved these changes
Apr 19, 2023
1 task
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
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
4 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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
This is the simplest alternative to #53781. It also moves the
isInteractivebit onto the refactor action, not the refactor itself. This makes more sense, but would have been even more work to achieve in the strict type safety scheme of #53781.I think I like this one better, and it’s not incompatible with adding strict types similar to #53781 down the line if we feel it’s worth it. (My guess is we won’t.)