-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.1k
Fix #3470: Fix NPE when TypeVar tries to instantiate already instantiated variab… #3472
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
nerush
commented
Nov 14, 2017
- Fix NPE when TypeVar tries to instantiate already instantiated variable with given type.
- Remove unused imports
- Fix typos
…le with given type.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hello, and thank you for opening this PR! 🎉
All contributors have signed the CLA, thank you! ❤️
Commit Messages
We want to keep history, but for that to actually be useful we have
some rules on how to format our commit messages (relevant xkcd).
Please stick to these guidelines for commit messages:
- Separate subject from body with a blank line
- When fixing an issue, start your commit message with
Fix #<ISSUE-NBR>:
- Limit the subject line to 72 characters
- Capitalize the subject line
- Do not end the subject line with a period
- Use the imperative mood in the subject line ("Added" instead of "Add")
- Wrap the body at 80 characters
- Use the body to explain what and why vs. how
adapted from https://chris.beams.io/posts/git-commit
Have an awesome day! ☀️
Thanks for the PR! Do you have a test case that generates a NPE here? |
@OlivierBlanvillain Simply forgot to add it. Shall I add it to |
Put it in |
1a50c45
to
3433789
Compare
@OlivierBlanvillain unit test is in |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The fixes to imports and comments are all very welcome. But I am not sure about the core of the change, to test for owningState != null
. Such a test is usually a code smell. If we do accept that in the code base we'd need a comment that explains why owningState
could be null
at this point.
Superseded by #3726. |