smiklosovic commented on code in PR #4411:
URL: https://github.com/apache/cassandra/pull/4411#discussion_r2454775502
##########
src/java/org/apache/cassandra/schema/ColumnMetadata.java:
##########
@@ -739,6 +770,15 @@ public void serialize(ColumnMetadata t, DataOutputPlus
out, Version version) thr
}
if (version.isAtLeast(Version.V7))
out.writeVInt32(t.uniqueId);
+ if (version.isAtLeast(Version.V8))
+ {
+ out.writeBoolean(t.comment != null);
Review Comment:
if (t.comment == null)
{
out.writeBoolean(false);
}
else
{
out.writeBoolean(true);
out.writeUTF(t.comment);
}
Why can not you be more succinct? You would be making just one null check
here instead of twice (and 2 null checks in total instead of 4). Same style
should be applied everywhere. I prefer the style when I do the stuff based on
what state some variable is of. Not that I am doing a logic and then I am
trying to retrofit what goes in there, because you will be checking for null
twice, for example. This is a trivial example but if you can just check for
nullity once, why would you do it repeatedly? Start with easy comparision
first, do not "invert it". Because then you need to invert the condition in
your head as well as you read it. The snippet I wrote above just can not be
easier on eyes and code-flow-wise.
##########
src/java/org/apache/cassandra/schema/ColumnMetadata.java:
##########
@@ -739,6 +770,15 @@ public void serialize(ColumnMetadata t, DataOutputPlus
out, Version version) thr
}
if (version.isAtLeast(Version.V7))
out.writeVInt32(t.uniqueId);
+ if (version.isAtLeast(Version.V8))
+ {
+ out.writeBoolean(t.comment != null);
Review Comment:
if (t.comment == null)
{
out.writeBoolean(false);
}
else
{
out.writeBoolean(true);
out.writeUTF(t.comment);
}
Why can not you be more succinct? You would be making just one null check
here instead of twice (and 2 null checks in total instead of 4). Same style
should be applied everywhere.
I prefer the style when I do the stuff based on what state some variable is
of. Not that I am doing a logic and then I am trying to retrofit what goes in
there, because you will be checking for null twice, for example. This is a
trivial example but if you can just check for nullity once, why would you do it
repeatedly? Start with easy comparision first, do not "invert it". Because then
you need to invert the condition in your head as well as you read it. The
snippet I wrote above just can not be easier on eyes and code-flow-wise.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
