Clean up comments and tests for the Dag version inflation checker - #72028
Open
jedcunningham wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
Clean up comments and tests for the Dag version inflation checker#72028jedcunningham wants to merge 1 commit into
jedcunningham wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
The comments described how the code used to behave rather than what it does now, and the removed test covered the same case as the one above it.
jedcunningham
added
the
changelog:skip
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Follow-up cleanup on #68795.
The comments there described how the code used to behave rather than what it does now, so they're removed or collapsed to a single line, and the fixtures use the
# !problemmarker the rest of the file already uses.Also drops
test_multiple_nested_non_dag_withs_do_not_exit_dag_context.is_with_dag_contextis function-local and recomputed on everyvisit_With, so extra nestedwiths just take the same branch again — it covered the same case as the test above it. The three that remain each pin a different task position: after, inside, and outside the nested block.No behavior change.
Was generative AI tooling used to co-author this PR?
Generated-by: Claude Code (Opus 5) following the guidelines