More strict null checks work #8340
Conversation
…strictNullChecks-dep-cycle-2
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #8340 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 73.50% 73.52% +0.02%
==========================================
Files 1330 1330
Lines 41131 41142 +11
Branches 7643 7657 +14
==========================================
+ Hits 30233 30250 +17
+ Misses 10898 10892 -6 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
| // At least one must match, otherwise userSelectElement would have thrown | ||
| activeRoot = | ||
| rootElements?.find((rootElement) => rootElement.contains(element)) ?? | ||
| null; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do you think the comment here means we could safely use assertNotNullish()?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The problem is find can always return undefined. I think this is the simplest from a typing. Other option would be to use !
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This wouldn't work?
| // At least one must match, otherwise userSelectElement would have thrown | |
| activeRoot = | |
| rootElements?.find((rootElement) => rootElement.contains(element)) ?? | |
| null; | |
| activeRoot = rootElements?.find((rootElement) => rootElement.contains(element)); | |
| // At least one must match, otherwise userSelectElement would have thrown | |
| assertNotNullish(activeRoot); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No, cause then I would have to change the typing of activeRoot to allow undefined
|
No loom links were found in the first post. Please add one there if you'd like to it to appear on Slack. Do not edit this comment manually. |
What does this PR do?
Checklist