Add avatar field to ThreadChanges so we can call changeThreadSettings with an edit avatar request.
Next diff will handle validation on the keyserver
Diff Detail
Diff Detail
- Repository
- rCOMM Comm
- Branch
- master
- Lint
No Lint Coverage - Unit
No Test Coverage
Event Timeline
Comment Actions
You have a pattern of submitting tiny diffs... I find these hard to review because I don't see the context of your changes. Can you please include the actual changes instead of submitting a diff that only changes types?
Comment Actions
Included changes in D7332. Combining these changes made my workflow more difficult:
Personally would prefer to be able to get these scaffolding type diffs out of the way so I don't need to constantly reposition things.
I'm not sure what's hard to review here?
Comment Actions
Included changes in D7332. Combining these changes made my workflow more difficult:
Personally would prefer to be able to get these scaffolding type diffs out of the way so I don't need to constantly reposition things.
Let's talk through this workflow in our next 1:1. It's not clear to me what you're doing with these "DO NOT LAND" diffs... I've personally never found it necessary to make commits like that, but perhaps there is a good reason it's necessary in this case.
It's also not clear to me how the "DO NOT LAND" diffs complicate my request to squash Flow-only diffs into the diffs that already have changes, but perhaps I'm looking at the wrong thing in your screenshot?
I'm not sure what's hard to review here?
I don't have prior context on how the ThreadChanges type is used in the codebase. To review this diff, I first had to search for what that is. After that, I had to ask myself "are these all the changes that are necessary for your work?", which is pretty much impossible to answer without the context of what the rest of your work looks like.
This by itself is not crazy, but it's part of a pattern of submitting tiny diffs for review that contributes to making it hard to review your work. Unless there's a strong reason, I don't think we should separate type changes like this from the related code changes.