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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
feat(core): initial normalization 🙀 #9728
feat(core): initial normalization 🙀 #9728
Changes from 14 commits
dcb6796
8c4642a
15e6fb6
daa0523
522d2ef
e64f596
736af4b
a577bd2
84b4836
b3de1ff
95ad1c4
bf15feb
79f37f7
9ee183c
93e1c18
9dbf70c
f1b12a1
c4c7361
3723e6b
4afe038
1d9820b
9292410
4cdc2c3
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
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.
Do we need to
return
if!U_SUCCESS(status)
when in release builds, becauseold_ctxtstr_nfc
will be in an uncertain state?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.
It'll be in an unchanged state but yes.
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.
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 see a pattern emerging with these assertions which we should potentially cleanup, e.g.
and something like:
The function name I've come up with could be better!
The fact that two assertions are missing in your PR highlights the need for the refactor 😁
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.
makes sense- thanks
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.
Having this
remove_text
is good because with the planned action object change, remove text will be able to more efficiently update the action object.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.
We should consider asserting the values of the UC_SENTINEL and CODE_DEADKEY?
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 think I'd prefer the failure cases in each function to be tested and
return str
just like the following functions do, for consistency.Also, is there a good reason to return str as well as modify the input parameter? This seems likely to lead to unintentional wrong uses of the functions. Why not return bool success value instead (as suggested earlier in my review)?