| FazBrowse GitHub Viewer | Trending | | Home |
| Tools: [Download Repo ZIP] [Original HTTPS Page] |
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I really like the direction, I think it makes a lot of sense to consolidate this class of errors and their handling into a single place. I've added a couple of comments/questions...
Sorry, something went wrong.
As we add more configuration errors, we can standardize throwing and catching them in the `codeql` file where we actually invoke the commands. Also, rename to `isCliConfigurationError` for more clarity.
To maintain parity with the previous logic: only 1 of the 2 conditions needs to hold: either the exit codes match, or the error messages match.
And all associated methods/comments that say `user error`
Now that we are always appending the original error, this test needs to be updated.
|
Okay.. the refactoring based off of the feedback took a bit longer/was more complex than expected, but I think I'm happy with the results 😸
|
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I like the direction, couple of small queries!
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🚀
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🚀
Sorry, something went wrong.
| Back | FazBrowse Home | New Git URL |
As we add more configuration errors to improve our uptime measurements, I thought it would be nice to refactor the existing errors into their own file. I took inspiration from the FeatureConfig Record that we use for feature flags.
Also, I thought it would be nice to consolidate the place we check for configuration errors into codeql.ts, where the actual command invocations happen.
The PR also renames the UserError type to ConfigurationError to standardize on a single term.
Merge / deployment checklist