Merged
Conversation
Collaborator
Can you check that these particular cases are not test cases for the LPP or for the comment insertion function. |
Collaborator
Author
|
I double checked, and the ones I changed manually were: These look unrelated to the LPP or any tests |
jlerbsc
added
the
PR: Changed
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
The motivation for this PR is discussed in #4408 and this is a follow-up to #4409
The changes in this PR were made by running
./run_core_metamodel_generator.sh && ./run_core_generators.sh && ./mvnw spotless:applyuntil the output was stable (that is to say, until running these commands again didn't result in any changes to the source files). I ran these commands with the ratcheting option disabled, so all source files in the repo were reformatted, but this should be unnecessary for regular PRs.I did have to make a few minor manual changes where line comments
// ...were used in the middle of multi-line call chains or argument lists since these were somehow being duplicated on the lines above (which is probably a pretty printer bug, but that's out of the scope of this PR). The manual changes I made were either moving these comments to the line directly before the statement they appeared in, or to turn them into block comments/* ... */