-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 176
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.
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
refactor: comment and unify the creation and filling of trackStateProxy (KF) #2499
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #2499 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 49.60% 49.60%
=======================================
Files 471 471
Lines 26687 26695 +8
Branches 12280 12284 +4
=======================================
+ Hits 13238 13242 +4
Misses 4747 4747
- Partials 8702 8706 +4
📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
To me this seems like it makes it less readable and harder to follow, also because you lose the comments in between.
But ok if you feel like this is unneeded repetition we can factorize it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm still not convinced this is an improvement. I think we're trading 10 possibly duplicated lines for a function with a very complex signature that does complex logic just to factorize.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
to me this looks a bit like an over generalization. at least with the current code I do not see a big improvement. do you see this making a difference in the GX2F impl or an application on the GSF?
I see that an extra function might be overshooting the purpose. Could you have a look again? @paulgessinger @andiwand |
We always check for the covariance before setting it. Is there in all 3 cases a chance, that it is missing? At least from the
|
Makes the generation and filling of the trackStateProxy, look the same at all places, where it occurs. I tried to make it more readable by updating the comments and adding more scopes for temporary variables that are used for the filling.
This should make it more easy to understand what's going on for the next user, because now it is clearer that we are: