crypto: remove redundant validateUint32 argument - #30579
Closed
tniessen wants to merge 1 commit into
Closed
Conversation
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member
Sorry, something went wrong.
The third parameter should be a boolean indicating whether the number must be positive. Passing zero works, but is unnecessary, misleading and inconsistent with other uses of the same function.
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member
Author
|
Please add 👍 here to approve fast-tracking. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
cjihrig
approved these changes
Nov 21, 2019
mhdawson
approved these changes
Nov 21, 2019
mhdawson
left a comment
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM
Sorry, something went wrong.
lpinca
approved these changes
Nov 21, 2019
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator
Sorry, something went wrong.
tniessen
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 22, 2019
The third parameter should be a boolean indicating whether the number must be positive. Passing zero works, but is unnecessary, misleading and inconsistent with other uses of the same function. PR-URL: #30579 Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <michael_dawson@ca.ibm.com> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com>
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member
Author
|
Landed in 64ee64d, thanks for reviewing. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
addaleax
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 30, 2019
The third parameter should be a boolean indicating whether the number must be positive. Passing zero works, but is unnecessary, misleading and inconsistent with other uses of the same function. PR-URL: #30579 Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <michael_dawson@ca.ibm.com> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com>
targos
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 1, 2019
The third parameter should be a boolean indicating whether the number must be positive. Passing zero works, but is unnecessary, misleading and inconsistent with other uses of the same function. PR-URL: #30579 Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <michael_dawson@ca.ibm.com> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com>
Merged
Closed
MylesBorins
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 17, 2019
The third parameter should be a boolean indicating whether the number must be positive. Passing zero works, but is unnecessary, misleading and inconsistent with other uses of the same function. PR-URL: #30579 Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <michael_dawson@ca.ibm.com> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com>
Merged
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 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.
The third parameter should be a boolean indicating whether the number must be positive. Passing zero works, but is unnecessary, misleading and inconsistent with other uses of the same function.
Checklist