Skip to content
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

Improve backwards compatibility for apps that use LayoutEvaluator.RemoveHiddenData #1053

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Jan 23, 2025

Conversation

ivarne
Copy link
Member

@ivarne ivarne commented Jan 22, 2025

SSB complains that updating to 8.5.0 is not friction less, so I made a few changes to fix it

  • Un[Obsolete] LayoutEvaluatorStateInitializer.Init(), as it still works and we don't have a good alternative finished yet.
  • Move RowRemovalOption back to original namespace
  • Create RemoveHiddenDataAsync and ensure that the old version is Wait()ed. (Code without mulitple datamodels is syncronous anyway)

…oveHiddenData

* Move RowRemovalOption back to original namespace
* Create RemoveHiddenDataAsync and ensure that the old version is `Wait()`ed. (Code without mulitple datamodels is syncronous anyway)
@ivarne ivarne requested a review from martinothamar January 22, 2025 14:14
@ivarne ivarne added the bugfix Label Pull requests with bugfix. Used when generation releasenotes label Jan 22, 2025
@ivarne ivarne merged commit 6ff67a8 into main Jan 23, 2025
10 checks passed
@ivarne ivarne deleted the bug/restore-backwards-compatibility branch January 23, 2025 13:10
Copy link

Quality Gate Failed Quality Gate failed

Failed conditions
25.0% Coverage on New Code (required ≥ 65%)
B Maintainability Rating on New Code (required ≥ A)

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud

Catch issues before they fail your Quality Gate with our IDE extension SonarQube for IDE

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bugfix Label Pull requests with bugfix. Used when generation releasenotes
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants