Skip to content
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

Dataized.java:54-57: It is necessary to call {@link... #3298

Open
0pdd opened this issue Jul 29, 2024 · 2 comments
Open

Dataized.java:54-57: It is necessary to call {@link... #3298

0pdd opened this issue Jul 29, 2024 · 2 comments

Comments

@0pdd
Copy link

0pdd commented Jul 29, 2024

The puzzle 2251-77d37465 from #2251 has to be resolved:

* @todo #2251:90min It is necessary to call {@link ThreadLocal#remove()} on
* {@link Dataized#LEVEL} variables to prevent memory leaks. We should either find a place
* where this variable can be removed, or, if this is not possible
* (see https://github.com/objectionary/eo/pull/1930), come up with another solution.

The puzzle was created by Yegor Bugayenko on 29-Jul-24.

Estimate: 90 minutes, role: DEV.

If you have any technical questions, don't ask me, submit new tickets instead. The task will be "done" when the problem is fixed and the text of the puzzle is removed from the source code. Here is more about PDD and about me.

Copy link

@0pdd thanks for the report, here is a feedback:

  • The todo message formulation is redundant. The same message is repeated for the LEVEL and MAX_LEVEL variables which makes it confusing to understand what exactly needs to be done for each variable. Instead, the author should mention each variable separately with the necessary action for it.
  • The todo references an external link (Batch fix sonarqube failures #1930) for details but it does not specify what the details are about. The author should include a brief about what the link covers or how it relates to the todo task.
  • The todo does not specify who should perform the task "We should either find a place where this variable can be removed". The author should make it clear if he/she means the code contributors or the code reviewers.

Please fix the bug report in order it to get resolved faster.
Analyzed with gpt-4

@0pdd
Copy link
Author

0pdd commented Jul 29, 2024

@0pdd thanks for the report, here is a feedback: * The todo message formulation is redundant. The sa...

I see you're talking to me, but I can't reply since I'm not a chat bot.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant