-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.4k
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
Replace explicit checks for DeveloperErrors with calls to the new Check type #4794
Comments
All of these files are in the |
@WilliamKHo @moneimne @omh1280 @AnimatedRNG Let's work on these to start. Open a separate pull request for each file to start. @rahwang would you like to do the first round of reviews for these? All these files are in the
|
I'd be happy to @lilleyse ! @WilliamKHo @moneimne @omh1280 When you open a pull request for any of these, please tag. Ping if you need help! |
|
This is unlikely to become a priority anytime soon. We'd still happily accept a PR addressing this issue. But tracking this isn't particularly useful because of its low priority, so I will close it. Thanks! |
#4726 introduced a new private class, Check, with static utility functions to do common parameter validation and throw a
DeveloperError
. UsingCheck
instead of explicit hand-coded conditionals is more concise. For example:becomes
#4726 also updated
Cartesian3
to useCheck
.We still want to update the rest of the Cesium codebase to use
Check
when reasonable (very specific checks forDeveloperError
s can still be hand-coded). This is a great beginner issue.Core
directory: cartesian, matrices, quaternions, etc.@exception
s is still correct and that there are unit tests for the exceptions in the correspondingSpec
file (try the WebStorm plugin to flip between the source and spec file).The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: