Thank you for the feedback, I'll step up my game. I'll have a more proper pull request soon. Thanks again!
Kenny On Oct 25, 2017 12:33 AM, "Sebastian Nagel" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Kenneth, > > thanks for your interest and your help. It's appreciated. > > > fixmes can be safely deleted. > > Well, of course, they can be safely deleted. It's just a comment. > > However, they've been added probably because the javadoc of > URLUtil.getDomainName(URL url) does not document whether it may return > null. > > A good fix would include to > - analyze .getDomainName(...) and find out whether it may return null > - update the javadocs accordingly > - if null is never returned: remove the unnecessary check for toDomain == > null > - finally, remove the fixme > > I'll also comment on your pull request. > > Thanks, > Sebastian > > On 10/24/2017 10:47 PM, kenneth mcfarland wrote: > > Disregard please, after carefully considering the code flow the only > thing I can conclude is the > > fixmes can be safely deleted. Foot in mouth. > > > > On Oct 24, 2017 1:14 PM, "kenneth mcfarland" < > [email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > I am doing some reading and I believe I have identified a block of > code who's logic is flawed. > > I'm on master. > > > > Go to ParseOutputFormat, I am comparing block of code, block one is > line 362-378 and then block > > two is 379 - 394. There are 4 fixemes in these two blocks also, so > while considering what I have > > to say it might be worth reading those also. > > > > Now block one is trying to ignore external links, it seems ok. I am > eyeballing this like my last > > fix, doing the logic in my head. My very first question is why we > are doing boolean comparison > > for blocks with two different intents with the same variable. > > > > Explicitly stated, shouldnt line 380 use a boolean of > "ignoreInternalLinks" instead of external? > > Aso, there is no exemption filter checking under block two like > there is in block one. > > > > I know this is abstact, I wish I could just post the code somehow > with snippets but thanks for > > taking the time to look as I'm almost dead certain this is flawed > logic again > > > > > >
