Skip to content

Conversation

@zhengkunwang223
Copy link
Member

No description provided.

@f2c-ci-robot
Copy link

f2c-ci-robot bot commented Feb 19, 2025

Adding the "do-not-merge/release-note-label-needed" label because no release-note block was detected, please follow our release note process to remove it.

Details

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.


if (
to.meta.activeMenu &&
to.meta.activeMenu != from.meta.activeMenu &&
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The most notable difference between the two codes is the use of localStorage.removeItem() followed by return next(); at line 47. This may cause unnecessary memory usage and should be replaced with a cleaner approach like calling an async function which will not affect cache behavior. Additionally, please ensure you follow modern naming conventions and avoid global variables or functions where reusable code has been implemented.

For example:

try {
    // Remove cached route from local storage if it exists
} catch (error) {}
return await router.push(to);  // Always push to location rather than navigating

This version uses try-catch block to prevent errors during removal. The return await statement ensures that no side effects take place in case an error arises while trying to remove the item form cache.

opts = append(opts, repo.WithByType(req.TaskType), taskRepo.WithOperate(req.TaskOperate), taskRepo.WithResourceID(req.ResourceID))
}
taskModel, err := taskRepo.GetFirst(opts...)
if err != nil {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The two code files have different names, but the overall structure is almost identical as they serve the same purpose of reading log data from a File service based on a given file read line request. However, there's no direct difference identified that suggests an issue or regularity problem.

To optimize the readability and performance:

  1. Make all variables in single lines.
  2. Use string slicing to join strings instead of concatenation.
  3. Rename functions or variable names to be more descriptive.

For checking the compliance with standards over time, this should not impact anything since they're written well and do what they should: fetching the log data from the provided repository.

@sonarqubecloud
Copy link

Copy link
Member

@wanghe-fit2cloud wanghe-fit2cloud left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

/lgtm

@wanghe-fit2cloud
Copy link
Member

/approve

@f2c-ci-robot
Copy link

f2c-ci-robot bot commented Feb 19, 2025

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: wanghe-fit2cloud

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Details Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@f2c-ci-robot f2c-ci-robot bot merged commit 48abf71 into dev-v2 Feb 19, 2025
6 checks passed
@f2c-ci-robot f2c-ci-robot bot deleted the pr@dev-v2@common branch February 19, 2025 10:16
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants