Closed akornich closed 2 years ago
There are a lot of comments throughout the code, where 'TODO' has been stripped from the comment, but there's no apparent related code change. I don't know how to interpret these. Did the TODO get implemented in these cases?
Related to that, the
Dispose
pattern that is implemented several times in the code seems to have a mismatch in meaning between the comments and the code. It was also odd to see a lint error suppression ("S1066:Collapsible "if" statements should be merged") in only one of those cases, and none of the others. Is that lint suppression really needed?
@waltjones , I addressed all of it in the other code-spot-specific comments that you made. Let me know if I missed anything...
@akornich Thanks for the follow up. The changes in the TODO comments look like something that will come back to haunt later. The resulting comments seem misleading.
@akornich Thanks for the follow up. The changes in the TODO comments look like something that will come back to haunt later. The resulting comments seem misleading.
@waltjones, what do you mean by "haunt later"? These are modified code comments that still have the same directions to follow when/if applicable but do not disturb the SonarrCloud analyzer long-term if never needed to implement in each specific case.
Also, what is exactly so misleading about?:
// free unmanaged resources (unmanaged objects) and override a finalizer below.
OR
// set large fields to null.
If a class does not use unmanaged resources, there is nothing to free following the first direction. OR If a class does not have any large data fields - no need to set them to null. However, if later on, the class adds the use of a large field, the comment serves as a reminder/direction to set the new field to null.
If the comments don't apply to the code, they should be removed completely. If they are a todo that should be implemented later, they should say that clearly in some way.
Maybe send the diff to some other people and see what feedback you get.
@waltjones , thanks again for the diligent review!
Description of the change
Type of change
Related issues
Checklists
Development
Code review