Explicitly check for None rather than falsey #1269
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
jeffwidman
force-pushed
the
check-for-none-rather-than-false
branch
from
b08b1e4 to
95d33e0
Compare
|
And it's faster anyway) |
dpkp
reviewed
Oct 19, 2017
kafka/client_async.py
Outdated
| @@ -681,8 +681,6 @@ def least_loaded_node(self): | |||
| elif 'bootstrap' in self._conns: | |||
| return 'bootstrap' | |||
|
|
|||
| return None | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Slight preference for keeping this as an explicit return. Otherwise we still return None, it is just implicit when the function completes.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No problem, reverted.
dpkp
approved these changes
Oct 19, 2017
jeffwidman
force-pushed
the
check-for-none-rather-than-false
branch
from
95d33e0 to
c72182e
Compare
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Be pedantic about checking for identity rather than equality to avoid issues like #1237 / 411bc08
Noticed while reviewing #1266