R/0.5.1 #13
R/0.5.1 #13
Conversation
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #13 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 90.75% 91.86% +1.10%
==========================================
Files 9 9
Lines 487 504 +17
==========================================
+ Hits 442 463 +21
+ Misses 37 32 -5
- Partials 8 9 +1 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
|
| this.isBuilt = false | ||
| this.isSealed = false | ||
| this.DisableValidation = false | ||
| lastContainerID = atomic.Int32{} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
these 2 lines will cause unpredictable behavior.
when I call con.clearAll(), I would not expect it will impact other containers or future created containers.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
example of the unpredictable behavior:
func Test() {
con1 = NewContainer()
con1.RegisterSomething()
con1.clearAll() //got other idea, so reset the container
con1.RegisterSomethingElse()
con2 = NewContainer()
con2.Register()
}
I did not expect that con1.clearAll() would have impact on con2, and make it got the same ID as con1, if the test continue there will be conflict between con1 and con2
There was a problem hiding this comment.
IMO con.clearAll() should impact only con
if for some reason you really want to reset the lastContainerID like this, then I suggest you would do it in another global function such as resetContainersIDCounter().
Anyway I'm curious about what was the motivation to reset this counter?
No description provided.