Mark constrainCenter return value as discardable #29
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
mpospese
requested review from
sanjibchakraborty,
karthikyml,
SahilSainiYML and
dharmik-yml
KMANO05
previously approved these changes
Nov 22, 2022
karthikyml
approved these changes
Nov 22, 2022
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Introduction
All our constrain auto layout methods are supposed to return layout constraints as discardable (99% of the time the caller doesn't need to reference them further).
constrainCenterbreaks this pattern by not being marked discardable (an oversight and a failure in the original PR to add this feature).Purpose
Mark
constrainCentermethod return value as discardableScope
constrainCenterfuncDiscussion
This was intended to be part of the original ticket but got overlooked. I tried to use the new constrainCenter method in a sample app and the compiler complained that the return type was unused, which alerted me to the mistake.
Resolves #27
📈 Coverage
Nothing should change since we're just adding an attribute to one function.