Open 0xFEEDC0DE64 opened 3 days ago
Messages | |
---|---|
:book: | 🎉 Good Job! All checks are passing! |
👋 Hello 0xFEEDC0DE64, we appreciate your contribution to this project!
This automated output is generated by the PR linter DangerJS, which checks if your Pull Request meets the project's requirements and helps you fix potential issues.
DangerJS is triggered with each push
event to a Pull Request and modify the contents of this comment.
Please consider the following:
- Danger mainly focuses on the PR structure and formatting and can't understand the meaning behind your code or changes.
- Danger is not a substitute for human code reviews; it's still important to request a code review from your colleagues.
- To manually retry these Danger checks, please navigate to the Actions tab and re-run last Danger workflow.
We do welcome contributions in the form of bug reports, feature requests and pull requests via this public GitHub repository.
This GitHub project is public mirror of our internal git repository
1. An internal issue has been created for the PR, we assign it to the relevant engineer.
2. They review the PR and either approve it or ask you for changes or clarifications.
3. Once the GitHub PR is approved, we synchronize it into our internal git repository.
4. In the internal git repository we do the final review, collect approvals from core owners and make sure all the automated tests are passing.
- At this point we may do some adjustments to the proposed change, or extend it by adding tests or documentation.
5. If the change is approved and passes the tests it is merged into the default branch.
5. On next sync from the internal git repository merged change will appear in this public GitHub repository.
Generated by :no_entry_sign: dangerJS against 4bbff34ac22449f7fd12bccad0382bacb5b99538
Hi @0xFEEDC0DE64, The parameter has been marked as const
to indicate that the function does not intend to update the value of the parameter in any case. Also, it would be considered as a breaking change now if we are to modify the type.
May I know what problem is it causing at your side?
Is it possible for you to typecast
it to const
at the time of initialising the config structure if your code is not defining it as a const variable?
Get rid of useless const from size parameter as it does not allow for easy setup of the struct