Remove unnecessary xref parameters from various method signatures in PartialEvaluator, since this.xref is already available in the relevant scope
#8196
Conversation
… error(...); }` instances to `assert(someVariable);` instead Rather than, in a number of places, basically duplicating the logic of `assert` we can simply utilize the function directly instead.
…n `PartialEvaluator`, since `this.xref` is already available in the relevant scope For reasons I don't pretend to understand, we're passing around `xref` arguments to a bunch of methods despite `this.xref` being available in `PartialEvaluator`. This patch is a small first small step towards cleaning up the, often unwieldy, signatures of methods in `PartialEvaluator`.
|
/botio-linux preview |
From: Bot.io (Linux)ReceivedCommand cmd_preview from @timvandermeij received. Current queue size: 0 Live output at: http://107.21.233.14:8877/6d3698c2b747ebf/output.txt |
From: Bot.io (Linux)SuccessFull output at http://107.21.233.14:8877/6d3698c2b747ebf/output.txt Total script time: 2.14 mins Published |
|
/botio test |
From: Bot.io (Linux)ReceivedCommand cmd_test from @timvandermeij received. Current queue size: 0 Live output at: http://107.21.233.14:8877/b9f3673308103a1/output.txt |
From: Bot.io (Windows)ReceivedCommand cmd_test from @timvandermeij received. Current queue size: 0 Live output at: http://54.215.176.217:8877/6ba928d6dc63677/output.txt |
From: Bot.io (Windows)SuccessFull output at http://54.215.176.217:8877/6ba928d6dc63677/output.txt Total script time: 22.55 mins
|
From: Bot.io (Linux)SuccessFull output at http://107.21.233.14:8877/b9f3673308103a1/output.txt Total script time: 29.00 mins
|
|
Thank you for cleaning this up! |
…dant-xref Remove unnecessary `xref` parameters from various method signatures in `PartialEvaluator`, since `this.xref` is already available in the relevant scope
My intention was, at this time, to avoid adding even more stuff to the review queues. However, this PR ties into the point made in #8176 (review) about all of the parameter passing in
evaluator.js, and seems to me to be fairly low-hanging fruit in that regard.@timvandermeij I'm flagging you for review, since this is a (small) first step with regards to the issue you raised in #8176 (review). If you don't have time, just un-assign yourself :-)