Remove 'nullalble' type and default 'null' value from AudioWorkletNodeOptions.processorOptions #2013
Conversation
| This holds any additional user-defined data that may be used to initialize the corresponding {{AudioWorkletProcessor}} for this {{AudioWorkletNode}}. | ||
| This holds any additional user-defined data that may be used to | ||
| initialize the corresponding {{AudioWorkletProcessor}} for this | ||
| {{AudioWorkletNode}}. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There was a redundant space and it was a single long line. I think Bikeshed rendered this line incorrectly because of the space. Also I have been doing line-wrapping as much as possible.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please don't do that. It makes reviewing harder. And also keep in mind: speced/bikeshed#1470. Until that's fixed, we should be very careful about wrapping lines.
| This holds any additional user-defined data that may be used to initialize the corresponding {{AudioWorkletProcessor}} for this {{AudioWorkletNode}}. | ||
| This holds any additional user-defined data that may be used to | ||
| initialize the corresponding {{AudioWorkletProcessor}} for this | ||
| {{AudioWorkletNode}}. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please don't do that. It makes reviewing harder. And also keep in mind: speced/bikeshed#1470. Until that's fixed, we should be very careful about wrapping lines.
|
Sorry, but I have a different opinion. We should improve the work where we can. These kind of long lines make the readability significantly worse. The review might slightly be more difficult, but it's better to improve the code. In this case, it's only 3 lines. (not having a well-defined style guide was a big mistake in the first place) Also I am not sure what the bug reported to Bikeshed was, but the preview looks good to me. I would like to merge as-is. |
|
The bikeshed bug was that in some cases the source looked like
which gets rendered like
which is pretty horrible if you should find it. Reformatting lines is ok, but unless it's actually releveant to the change, we should refrain from doing it in the same PR. It makes reviewing much harder. And even if it is relevant, wrapping lines makes it much harder to review. Don't make it even harder for the reviewers to review. Reformat in a different PR. Anyway, I already gave my lgtm earlier.... |
The line-wrapping change is not random and relevant to the changed property at l.9916. Also I wouldn't say it is "much harder" to read 18 more words, but perhaps that's more of personal preference. |
Fixes #2011, plus minor clean up.
Preview | Diff