Assert that there is at most one else in assertConsistency
#177
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
pmbittner
approved these changes
Oct 27, 2025
Member
pmbittner
left a comment
pmbittner
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thank you. :) As a general question: Wouldn't it make sense to reuse VariationNode::assertConsistency on the projections within DIffNode::assertConsistency? Then we could reuse the ELSE/ELIF check instead of implementing it twice.
src/main/java/org/variantsync/diffdetective/variation/diff/DiffNode.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
ibbem
force-pushed
the
assert-at-most-one-else
branch
from
1547549 to
2ea550e
Compare
ibbem
force-pushed
the
assert-at-most-one-else
branch
from
2ea550e to
9f43cc9
Compare
Collaborator
Author
|
You are right, it does make sense to reuse the |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This was originally discussed in #174 (comment)