+1. Annotation beats comment in this case, and @VisibleForTesting is more
descriptive than our old anno.
On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 3:43 PM Jinmei Liao wrote:
> +1. Yes, the original intention was exactly as @VisibleForTesting.
>
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 2:45 PM Galen O'Sullivan
> wrote:
>
> >
+1. Yes, the original intention was exactly as @VisibleForTesting.
On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 2:45 PM Galen O'Sullivan
wrote:
> Sounds good to me.
>
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 1:04 PM Owen Nichols wrote:
>
> > Sounds good, I would be happy to +1 a PR for this
> >
> > > On Dec 17, 2018, at 12:22
Sounds good to me.
On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 1:04 PM Owen Nichols wrote:
> Sounds good, I would be happy to +1 a PR for this
>
> > On Dec 17, 2018, at 12:22 PM, Kirk Lund wrote:
> >
> > We have a custom annotation in geode-common called @TestingOnly:
> >
> >
Sounds good, I would be happy to +1 a PR for this
> On Dec 17, 2018, at 12:22 PM, Kirk Lund wrote:
>
> We have a custom annotation in geode-common called @TestingOnly:
>
> geode-common/src/main/java/org/apache/geode/annotations/TestingOnly.java
>
> This annotation was created while pairing
We have a custom annotation in geode-common called @TestingOnly:
geode-common/src/main/java/org/apache/geode/annotations/TestingOnly.java
This annotation was created while pairing with Michael Feathers and the
intention was to annotate non-private constructors or methods that have a
widened
