Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Update documentation for Next history iterator #1853

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Update documentation for Next history iterator #1853

wants to merge 3 commits into from

Conversation

timsexperiments
Copy link

@timsexperiments timsexperiments commented Feb 26, 2025 •
edited
Loading

What was changed

This change:

  • Removes comment that contradicts behavior
  • Add documentation comment to make the functions behavior and dependency to HasNext clear.
  • Adds test to ensure that and breaking changes to this behavior is caught

Why?

While I was exploring the documentation for the get history calls at work, I was trying to figure out what happens with the iterator if HasNext() is false but the Next() function was called, and I noticed that there was this line where the comment contradicted it.

Checklist

  1. How was this tested:

Added unit test.

  1. Any docs updates needed?

I don't think so

@timsexperiments timsexperiments requested a review from a team as a code owner February 26, 2025 05:15
@CLAassistant
Copy link

CLAassistant commented Feb 26, 2025 •
edited
Loading

CLA assistant check
All committers have signed the CLA.

@timsexperiments timsexperiments changed the title update code to reflect comment (and my user expectation) Update documentation for Next history iterator Feb 26, 2025
@timsexperiments timsexperiments force-pushed the tim/fix-history-iterator-has-next branch from 2ec49b0 to 558ad79 Compare March 1, 2025 18:55
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@Quinn-With-Two-Ns Quinn-With-Two-Ns Awaiting requested review from Quinn-With-Two-Ns

At least 1 approving review is required to merge this pull request.

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
3 participants
@timsexperiments @CLAassistant @Quinn-With-Two-Ns