Fix inverted logic from 68c7c5c
#196
Merged
Conversation
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
`68c7c5c` changed `get(<...>).is_none()` to `contains_key(...)`. This inverts the result: While the original checks if the key is absent, the new version would check if the key is present. This commit fixes this inverted logic.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
68c7c5c changed
get(<...>).is_none()tocontains_key(...).This inverts the result of the code: While the original checks whether the key is absent, the new version would check if the key is present.
This fix inverts the result of
contains_keyto restore the original behaviour.I ran into this being an issue when updating the version of a workspace crate without any dependencies.
In this case, the crate would be skipped and the crate's
Cargo.tomlwould not be updated.