Don't recurse down closures for duplicate-label checking #27093
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Member
Author
|
cc @Ms2ger |
Manishearth
force-pushed
the
closure-label-shadow
branch
from
9224ebc to
ccf9050
Compare
Contributor
|
@bors r+ |
Collaborator
|
📌 Commit ccf9050 has been approved by |
Collaborator
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 21, 2015
Fixes #25343 To be honest I'm not sure if this is the right fix (I haven't yet fully understood the code), but it seems to work. I'll look closer at the code when I have some time, in the meantime if this is the right fix it would be nice to get verification from someone who does understand the code 😄 r? @pnkfelix
Collaborator
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Fixes #25343
To be honest I'm not sure if this is the right fix (I haven't yet fully understood the code),
but it seems to work. I'll look closer at the code when I have some time, in the meantime if this
is the right fix it would be nice to get verification from someone who does understand the code 😄
r? @pnkfelix