-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 301
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
Merge | TdsParser cosmetic changes #3222
Conversation
/azp run |
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
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.
Need comment from @benrr101 regarding constrainted regions.
src/Microsoft.Data.SqlClient/netcore/src/Microsoft/Data/SqlClient/TdsParser.cs
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #3222 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 72.64% 66.02% -6.63%
==========================================
Files 288 282 -6
Lines 59600 59331 -269
==========================================
- Hits 43299 39173 -4126
- Misses 16301 20158 +3857
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
This cleans up the diff of TdsParser. Contributes to #2953.
I recommend disabling whitespace when viewing this, it'll bring the PR size down to +239/-148.
Most of TdsParser is pretty similar. We've refactored a few methods, some of the members are in different orders and there are other cosmetic differences though, so this needs to be aligned before we can see where the true differences lie. This PR is the first of a few which do that. I'm fairly sure that once we've done that, only a few dozen lines of code will truly be different.
This dovetails with #2985, which handles some of the refactoring.
If someone from the SqlClient team can run CI, this should be enough to validate it. I don't expect that anything will have changed in the compiled DLL.