Validate XML comments in test sources during builds - #499

Merged
TomFinley merged 1 commit into
dotnet:masterfrom
sharwell:enable-doc-comments
Jul 9, 2018
Merged

Validate XML comments in test sources during builds#499
TomFinley merged 1 commit into
dotnet:masterfrom
sharwell:enable-doc-comments

Conversation

@sharwell

@sharwellsharwell commented Jul 5, 2018•
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor
  • CS1573, CS1591, and CS1712 are disabled in test code (documentation is not required)
  • Other documentation warnings are enabled (documentation, when included, must be syntactically and semantically correct)
  • Fixes cases where comments were incorrect in the current code

Related to #434

⚠️Please do not rewrite/rebase/squash this pull request during the merge. Edit: relaxing this request for this pull request. ⚠️

markusweimer
markusweimer approved these changes Jul 5, 2018
View reviewed changes

@markusweimermarkusweimer left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

TomFinley
TomFinley approved these changes Jul 5, 2018
View reviewed changes

@TomFinleyTomFinley left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks @sharwell

@sharwellsharwell mentioned this pull request Jul 5, 2018
Merged
@TomFinley

TomFinley commented Jul 5, 2018

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

So, I'd happily merge this @sharwell , but was curious about one thing you note:

Please do not rewrite/rebase/squash this pull request during the merge.

Why not squash? I doubt it would have any effect on your PR, since it consists of one commit anyway.

@sharwell

sharwell commented Jul 6, 2018•
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

Why not squash? I doubt it would have any effect on your PR, since it consists of one commit anyway.

It's a strong personal preference to not have my commits rewritten. In the event the preference cannot be accommodated¹, I prefer to have the PR closed and I would stick to filing issues and code reviews. Based on the repository history it appears that the standard merge strategy is acceptable but infrequently used, which is why I went ahead and submitted the pull request but included the note with the preference.

¹ I have no hard feelings in this case; it's happened before and I'm sure it will happen again sometime. 😄

@TomFinley

TomFinley commented Jul 9, 2018•
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Ah OK @sharwell . Hmmm. Sounds like there's a story there. Anyway, let's try this. I'll tell you the lines along which I was considering editing the commit message, and you can tell me if that's OK or not. Were I to merge without edit, the title would be, "Fix failure to validate XML comments in test sources during builds", which, frankly, I'm not 100% happy with since it mentions that something was fixed, but doesn't describe what was done. (It doesn't help that, even if we were to let people guess what was done, there are two obvious ways of doing it, suppressing validation vs. actually just fixing the comments so they pass validation, and arguably the latter is the more obvious common choice -- perhaps that it's "test" sources gives someone a hint, but I'd rather not have people rely on hints.)

So, I was going to change the thing to: "suppress XML comment validation in test code". If I was feeling especially feisty I might mention in the extended description (which is currently blank) what specific errors were addressed.

Would that level of edit be all right?

@sharwell

sharwell commented Jul 9, 2018•
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

@TomFinley What about the PR title?

Validate XML comments in test sources during builds

We spoke on the phone and I'm OK with squash merging for this PR as a matter of repo policy. I'll keep the policy in consideration when deciding how to participate in the future.

suppress XML comment validation in test code

This would not be a correct statement. Prior to this pull request, there was no validation of XML comments in test code, so this pull request strictly increases the amount of validation performed.

@TomFinley
TomFinley merged commit f7a5526 into dotnet:masterJul 9, 2018
@sharwell
sharwell deleted the enable-doc-comments branch July 10, 2018 02:21
eerhardt pushed a commit to eerhardt/machinelearning that referenced this pull request Jul 27, 2018
@sharwell@eerhardt
Fix failure to validate XML comments in test sources during builds (d…
b8a9973
…otnet#499)
@ghostghost locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Mar 30, 2022
Sign up for freeto subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.

Reviewers

2 more reviewers
@markusweimermarkusweimermarkusweimer approved these changes
@TomFinleyTomFinleyTomFinley approved these changes
Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@sharwell@TomFinley@markusweimer
, 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Add copy buttons to all 
 blocks\n(function() {\n function addCopyButtons() {\n document.querySelectorAll('pre code').forEach(function(codeBlock) {\n if (codeBlock.parentElement.hasAttribute('data-copy-added')) return;\n codeBlock.parentElement.setAttribute('data-copy-added', 'true');\n \n var btn = document.createElement('button');\n btn.textContent = 'Copy';\n btn.style.cssText = 'position:absolute;top:4px;right:4px;padding:2px 8px;font-size:11px;background:#4ecdc4;border:none;border-radius:4px;color:#1a1a2e;cursor:pointer;opacity:0.7;transition:opacity 0.2s;';\n btn.onmouseover = function() { this.style.opacity = '1'; };\n btn.onmouseout = function() { this.style.opacity = '0.7'; };\n btn.onclick = function() {\n navigator.clipboard.writeText(codeBlock.textContent).then(function() {\n btn.textContent = 'Copied!';\n setTimeout(function() { btn.textContent = 'Copy'; }, 1500);\n });\n };\n codeBlock.parentElement.style.position = 'relative';\n codeBlock.parentElement.appendChild(btn);\n });\n }\n \n addCopyButtons();\n \n // Re-run on dynamic content\n var observer = new MutationObserver(addCopyButtons);\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "Add Copy Buttons to Code Blocks");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Add Copy Buttons to Code Blocks]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "github.com";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + "github\\.com" + '

Skip to content
Validate XML comments in test sources during builds - #499
Merged
TomFinley merged 1 commit into
dotnet:masterfrom 
sharwell:enable-doc-comments
Jul 9, 2018
Merged
Validate XML comments in test sources during builds#499
TomFinley merged 1 commit into
dotnet:masterfrom 
sharwell:enable-doc-comments
Conversation
@sharwell
@sharwellsharwell
commented
Jul 5, 2018•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
  • CS1573, CS1591, and CS1712 are disabled in test code (documentation is not required)
  • Other documentation warnings are enabled (documentation, when included, must be syntactically and semantically correct)
  • Fixes cases where comments were incorrect in the current code
Related to #434
⚠️Please do not rewrite/rebase/squash this pull request during the merge. Edit: relaxing this request for this pull request. ⚠️
markusweimer
markusweimer
approved these changes
Jul 5, 2018
View reviewed changes
@markusweimermarkusweimer
left a comment


Copy link


Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM
TomFinley
TomFinley
approved these changes
Jul 5, 2018
View reviewed changes
@TomFinleyTomFinley
left a comment


Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks @sharwell
@sharwellsharwell
mentioned this pull request
Jul 5, 2018
 Merged

@TomFinley
TomFinley
commented
Jul 5, 2018

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
So, I'd happily merge this @sharwell , but was curious about one thing you note:
Please do not rewrite/rebase/squash this pull request during the merge.
Why not squash? I doubt it would have any effect on your PR, since it consists of one commit anyway.
@sharwell
sharwell
commented
Jul 6, 2018•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
Why not squash? I doubt it would have any effect on your PR, since it consists of one commit anyway.
It's a strong personal preference to not have my commits rewritten. In the event the preference cannot be accommodated¹, I prefer to have the PR closed and I would stick to filing issues and code reviews. Based on the repository history it appears that the standard merge strategy is acceptable but infrequently used, which is why I went ahead and submitted the pull request but included the note with the preference.
¹ I have no hard feelings in this case; it's happened before and I'm sure it will happen again sometime. 😄
@TomFinley
TomFinley
commented
Jul 9, 2018•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Ah OK @sharwell . Hmmm. Sounds like there's a story there. Anyway, let's try this. I'll tell you the lines along which I was considering editing the commit message, and you can tell me if that's OK or not. Were I to merge without edit, the title would be, "Fix failure to validate XML comments in test sources during builds", which, frankly, I'm not 100% happy with since it mentions that something was fixed, but doesn't describe what was done. (It doesn't help that, even if we were to let people guess what was done, there are two obvious ways of doing it, suppressing validation vs. actually just fixing the comments so they pass validation, and arguably the latter is the more obvious common choice -- perhaps that it's "test" sources gives someone a hint, but I'd rather not have people rely on hints.)
So, I was going to change the thing to: "suppress XML comment validation in test code". If I was feeling especially feisty I might mention in the extended description (which is currently blank) what specific errors were addressed.
Would that level of edit be all right?
@sharwell
sharwell
commented
Jul 9, 2018•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
@TomFinley What about the PR title?
Validate XML comments in test sources during builds
We spoke on the phone and I'm OK with squash merging for this PR as a matter of repo policy. I'll keep the policy in consideration when deciding how to participate in the future.
suppress XML comment validation in test code
This would not be a correct statement. Prior to this pull request, there was no validation of XML comments in test code, so this pull request strictly increases the amount of validation performed.
@TomFinley
TomFinley
merged commit f7a5526
into
dotnet:masterJul 9, 2018
@sharwell
sharwell
deleted the

enable-doc-comments

branch
July 10, 2018 02:21
eerhardt pushed a commit
to eerhardt/machinelearning
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 27, 2018
@sharwell@eerhardt
Fix failure to validate XML comments in test sources during builds (d…
b8a9973
…otnet#499)
@ghostghost
locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators
Mar 30, 2022
Sign up for freeto subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.


Reviewers


2 more reviewers

@markusweimermarkusweimermarkusweimer approved these changes
@TomFinleyTomFinleyTomFinley approved these changes
Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

Assignees


No one assigned


Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@sharwell@TomFinley@markusweimer

, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
injectUserscript("// Force GitHub README to respect dark mode\n(function() {\n var style = document.createElement('style');\n style.textContent = '\n .markdown-body {\n color-scheme: dark light;\n }\n .markdown-body pre { background: #161b22 !important; }\n .markdown-body code { background: rgba(110, 118, 129, 0.4) !important; }\n .markdown-body table th, .markdown-body table td { border-color: #30363d !important; }\n .markdown-body img { background: #0d1117; }\n .markdown-body blockquote { border-left-color: #8b949e; }\n .markdown-body hr { border-color: #30363d; }\n ';\n document.head.appendChild(style);\n})();", "GitHub Dark Mode README Fix");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:GitHub Dark Mode README Fix]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '

Skip to content
Validate XML comments in test sources during builds - #499
Merged
TomFinley merged 1 commit into
dotnet:masterfrom 
sharwell:enable-doc-comments
Jul 9, 2018
Merged
Validate XML comments in test sources during builds#499
TomFinley merged 1 commit into
dotnet:masterfrom 
sharwell:enable-doc-comments
Conversation
@sharwell
@sharwellsharwell
commented
Jul 5, 2018•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
  • CS1573, CS1591, and CS1712 are disabled in test code (documentation is not required)
  • Other documentation warnings are enabled (documentation, when included, must be syntactically and semantically correct)
  • Fixes cases where comments were incorrect in the current code
Related to #434
⚠️Please do not rewrite/rebase/squash this pull request during the merge. Edit: relaxing this request for this pull request. ⚠️
markusweimer
markusweimer
approved these changes
Jul 5, 2018
View reviewed changes
@markusweimermarkusweimer
left a comment


Copy link


Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM
TomFinley
TomFinley
approved these changes
Jul 5, 2018
View reviewed changes
@TomFinleyTomFinley
left a comment


Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks @sharwell
@sharwellsharwell
mentioned this pull request
Jul 5, 2018
 Merged

@TomFinley
TomFinley
commented
Jul 5, 2018

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
So, I'd happily merge this @sharwell , but was curious about one thing you note:
Please do not rewrite/rebase/squash this pull request during the merge.
Why not squash? I doubt it would have any effect on your PR, since it consists of one commit anyway.
@sharwell
sharwell
commented
Jul 6, 2018•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
Why not squash? I doubt it would have any effect on your PR, since it consists of one commit anyway.
It's a strong personal preference to not have my commits rewritten. In the event the preference cannot be accommodated¹, I prefer to have the PR closed and I would stick to filing issues and code reviews. Based on the repository history it appears that the standard merge strategy is acceptable but infrequently used, which is why I went ahead and submitted the pull request but included the note with the preference.
¹ I have no hard feelings in this case; it's happened before and I'm sure it will happen again sometime. 😄
@TomFinley
TomFinley
commented
Jul 9, 2018•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Ah OK @sharwell . Hmmm. Sounds like there's a story there. Anyway, let's try this. I'll tell you the lines along which I was considering editing the commit message, and you can tell me if that's OK or not. Were I to merge without edit, the title would be, "Fix failure to validate XML comments in test sources during builds", which, frankly, I'm not 100% happy with since it mentions that something was fixed, but doesn't describe what was done. (It doesn't help that, even if we were to let people guess what was done, there are two obvious ways of doing it, suppressing validation vs. actually just fixing the comments so they pass validation, and arguably the latter is the more obvious common choice -- perhaps that it's "test" sources gives someone a hint, but I'd rather not have people rely on hints.)
So, I was going to change the thing to: "suppress XML comment validation in test code". If I was feeling especially feisty I might mention in the extended description (which is currently blank) what specific errors were addressed.
Would that level of edit be all right?
@sharwell
sharwell
commented
Jul 9, 2018•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
@TomFinley What about the PR title?
Validate XML comments in test sources during builds
We spoke on the phone and I'm OK with squash merging for this PR as a matter of repo policy. I'll keep the policy in consideration when deciding how to participate in the future.
suppress XML comment validation in test code
This would not be a correct statement. Prior to this pull request, there was no validation of XML comments in test code, so this pull request strictly increases the amount of validation performed.
@TomFinley
TomFinley
merged commit f7a5526
into
dotnet:masterJul 9, 2018
@sharwell
sharwell
deleted the

enable-doc-comments

branch
July 10, 2018 02:21
eerhardt pushed a commit
to eerhardt/machinelearning
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 27, 2018
@sharwell@eerhardt
Fix failure to validate XML comments in test sources during builds (d…
b8a9973
…otnet#499)
@ghostghost
locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators
Mar 30, 2022
Sign up for freeto subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.


Reviewers


2 more reviewers

@markusweimermarkusweimermarkusweimer approved these changes
@TomFinleyTomFinleyTomFinley approved these changes
Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

Assignees


No one assigned


Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@sharwell@TomFinley@markusweimer

, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
injectUserscript("// Highlight search terms from Google/DuckDuckGo/Bing referrer\n(function() {\n var ref = document.referrer;\n var terms = [];\n \n if (ref.includes('google.com') || ref.includes('duckduckgo.com') || ref.includes('bing.com')) {\n var url = new URL(ref);\n var q = url.searchParams.get('q') || url.searchParams.get('p');\n if (q) {\n terms = q.split(/\\s+/).filter(function(t) { return t.length > 2; });\n }\n }\n \n if (terms.length === 0) return;\n \n var style = document.createElement('style');\n style.textContent = '.userscript-highlight { background: #fbbf24; color: #1a1a2e; padding: 1px 3px; border-radius: 2px; }';\n document.head.appendChild(style);\n \n function highlight(node) {\n if (node.nodeType === 3) { // text node\n var text = node.textContent;\n var found = false;\n terms.forEach(function(term) {\n var regex = new RegExp('(' + term.replace(/[.*+?^${}()|[\\]\\\\]/g, '\\\\') + ')', 'gi');\n if (regex.test(text)) {\n found = true;\n var frag = document.createDocumentFragment();\n var parts = text.split(regex);\n parts.forEach(function(part, i) {\n if (i % 2 === 0) {\n frag.appendChild(document.createTextNode(part));\n } else {\n var span = document.createElement('span');\n span.className = 'userscript-highlight';\n span.textContent = part;\n frag.appendChild(span);\n }\n });\n node.parentNode.replaceChild(frag, node);\n }\n });\n } else if (node.nodeType === 1 && node.childNodes) { // element\n var skipTags = ['SCRIPT', 'STYLE', 'NOSCRIPT', 'TEXTAREA', 'INPUT', 'SELECT'];\n if (!skipTags.includes(node.tagName)) {\n Array.from(node.childNodes).forEach(highlight);\n }\n }\n }\n \n highlight(document.body);\n \n // Re-highlight on dynamic content\n var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {\n mutations.forEach(function(m) {\n m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {\n if (node.nodeType === 1 || node.nodeType === 3) highlight(node);\n });\n });\n });\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "Highlight Search Terms");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Highlight Search Terms]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '

Skip to content
Validate XML comments in test sources during builds - #499
Merged
TomFinley merged 1 commit into
dotnet:masterfrom 
sharwell:enable-doc-comments
Jul 9, 2018
Merged
Validate XML comments in test sources during builds#499
TomFinley merged 1 commit into
dotnet:masterfrom 
sharwell:enable-doc-comments
Conversation
@sharwell
@sharwellsharwell
commented
Jul 5, 2018•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
  • CS1573, CS1591, and CS1712 are disabled in test code (documentation is not required)
  • Other documentation warnings are enabled (documentation, when included, must be syntactically and semantically correct)
  • Fixes cases where comments were incorrect in the current code
Related to #434
⚠️Please do not rewrite/rebase/squash this pull request during the merge. Edit: relaxing this request for this pull request. ⚠️
markusweimer
markusweimer
approved these changes
Jul 5, 2018
View reviewed changes
@markusweimermarkusweimer
left a comment


Copy link


Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM
TomFinley
TomFinley
approved these changes
Jul 5, 2018
View reviewed changes
@TomFinleyTomFinley
left a comment


Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks @sharwell
@sharwellsharwell
mentioned this pull request
Jul 5, 2018
 Merged

@TomFinley
TomFinley
commented
Jul 5, 2018

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
So, I'd happily merge this @sharwell , but was curious about one thing you note:
Please do not rewrite/rebase/squash this pull request during the merge.
Why not squash? I doubt it would have any effect on your PR, since it consists of one commit anyway.
@sharwell
sharwell
commented
Jul 6, 2018•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
Why not squash? I doubt it would have any effect on your PR, since it consists of one commit anyway.
It's a strong personal preference to not have my commits rewritten. In the event the preference cannot be accommodated¹, I prefer to have the PR closed and I would stick to filing issues and code reviews. Based on the repository history it appears that the standard merge strategy is acceptable but infrequently used, which is why I went ahead and submitted the pull request but included the note with the preference.
¹ I have no hard feelings in this case; it's happened before and I'm sure it will happen again sometime. 😄
@TomFinley
TomFinley
commented
Jul 9, 2018•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Ah OK @sharwell . Hmmm. Sounds like there's a story there. Anyway, let's try this. I'll tell you the lines along which I was considering editing the commit message, and you can tell me if that's OK or not. Were I to merge without edit, the title would be, "Fix failure to validate XML comments in test sources during builds", which, frankly, I'm not 100% happy with since it mentions that something was fixed, but doesn't describe what was done. (It doesn't help that, even if we were to let people guess what was done, there are two obvious ways of doing it, suppressing validation vs. actually just fixing the comments so they pass validation, and arguably the latter is the more obvious common choice -- perhaps that it's "test" sources gives someone a hint, but I'd rather not have people rely on hints.)
So, I was going to change the thing to: "suppress XML comment validation in test code". If I was feeling especially feisty I might mention in the extended description (which is currently blank) what specific errors were addressed.
Would that level of edit be all right?
@sharwell
sharwell
commented
Jul 9, 2018•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
@TomFinley What about the PR title?
Validate XML comments in test sources during builds
We spoke on the phone and I'm OK with squash merging for this PR as a matter of repo policy. I'll keep the policy in consideration when deciding how to participate in the future.
suppress XML comment validation in test code
This would not be a correct statement. Prior to this pull request, there was no validation of XML comments in test code, so this pull request strictly increases the amount of validation performed.
@TomFinley
TomFinley
merged commit f7a5526
into
dotnet:masterJul 9, 2018
@sharwell
sharwell
deleted the

enable-doc-comments

branch
July 10, 2018 02:21
eerhardt pushed a commit
to eerhardt/machinelearning
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 27, 2018
@sharwell@eerhardt
Fix failure to validate XML comments in test sources during builds (d…
b8a9973
…otnet#499)
@ghostghost
locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators
Mar 30, 2022
Sign up for freeto subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.


Reviewers


2 more reviewers

@markusweimermarkusweimermarkusweimer approved these changes
@TomFinleyTomFinleyTomFinley approved these changes
Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

Assignees


No one assigned


Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@sharwell@TomFinley@markusweimer

, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
injectUserscript("// Strip utm_, fbclid, gclid, etc. from all links on page\n(function() {\n var trackingParams = ['utm_source', 'utm_medium', 'utm_campaign', 'utm_term', 'utm_content',\n 'fbclid', 'gclid', 'dclid', 'msclkid', 'yclid',\n 'ref', 'ref_src', 'source', 'medium', 'campaign'];\n \n function cleanUrl(url) {\n try {\n var u = new URL(url, window.location.origin);\n var changed = false;\n trackingParams.forEach(function(p) {\n if (u.searchParams.has(p)) {\n u.searchParams.delete(p);\n changed = true;\n }\n });\n return changed ? u.toString() : url;\n } catch (e) {\n return url;\n }\n }\n \n function cleanLinks() {\n document.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {\n var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);\n if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;\n });\n }\n \n cleanLinks();\n \n var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {\n mutations.forEach(function(m) {\n m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {\n if (node.nodeType === 1) {\n if (node.tagName === 'A') cleanLinks();\n node.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {\n var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);\n if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;\n });\n }\n });\n });\n });\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "Remove Tracking Parameters from Links");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Remove Tracking Parameters from Links]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "youtube.com";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + "youtube\\.com" + '

Skip to content
Validate XML comments in test sources during builds - #499
Merged
TomFinley merged 1 commit into
dotnet:masterfrom 
sharwell:enable-doc-comments
Jul 9, 2018
Merged
Validate XML comments in test sources during builds#499
TomFinley merged 1 commit into
dotnet:masterfrom 
sharwell:enable-doc-comments
Conversation
@sharwell
@sharwellsharwell
commented
Jul 5, 2018•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
  • CS1573, CS1591, and CS1712 are disabled in test code (documentation is not required)
  • Other documentation warnings are enabled (documentation, when included, must be syntactically and semantically correct)
  • Fixes cases where comments were incorrect in the current code
Related to #434
⚠️Please do not rewrite/rebase/squash this pull request during the merge. Edit: relaxing this request for this pull request. ⚠️
markusweimer
markusweimer
approved these changes
Jul 5, 2018
View reviewed changes
@markusweimermarkusweimer
left a comment


Copy link


Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM
TomFinley
TomFinley
approved these changes
Jul 5, 2018
View reviewed changes
@TomFinleyTomFinley
left a comment


Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks @sharwell
@sharwellsharwell
mentioned this pull request
Jul 5, 2018
 Merged

@TomFinley
TomFinley
commented
Jul 5, 2018

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
So, I'd happily merge this @sharwell , but was curious about one thing you note:
Please do not rewrite/rebase/squash this pull request during the merge.
Why not squash? I doubt it would have any effect on your PR, since it consists of one commit anyway.
@sharwell
sharwell
commented
Jul 6, 2018•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
Why not squash? I doubt it would have any effect on your PR, since it consists of one commit anyway.
It's a strong personal preference to not have my commits rewritten. In the event the preference cannot be accommodated¹, I prefer to have the PR closed and I would stick to filing issues and code reviews. Based on the repository history it appears that the standard merge strategy is acceptable but infrequently used, which is why I went ahead and submitted the pull request but included the note with the preference.
¹ I have no hard feelings in this case; it's happened before and I'm sure it will happen again sometime. 😄
@TomFinley
TomFinley
commented
Jul 9, 2018•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Ah OK @sharwell . Hmmm. Sounds like there's a story there. Anyway, let's try this. I'll tell you the lines along which I was considering editing the commit message, and you can tell me if that's OK or not. Were I to merge without edit, the title would be, "Fix failure to validate XML comments in test sources during builds", which, frankly, I'm not 100% happy with since it mentions that something was fixed, but doesn't describe what was done. (It doesn't help that, even if we were to let people guess what was done, there are two obvious ways of doing it, suppressing validation vs. actually just fixing the comments so they pass validation, and arguably the latter is the more obvious common choice -- perhaps that it's "test" sources gives someone a hint, but I'd rather not have people rely on hints.)
So, I was going to change the thing to: "suppress XML comment validation in test code". If I was feeling especially feisty I might mention in the extended description (which is currently blank) what specific errors were addressed.
Would that level of edit be all right?
@sharwell
sharwell
commented
Jul 9, 2018•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
@TomFinley What about the PR title?
Validate XML comments in test sources during builds
We spoke on the phone and I'm OK with squash merging for this PR as a matter of repo policy. I'll keep the policy in consideration when deciding how to participate in the future.
suppress XML comment validation in test code
This would not be a correct statement. Prior to this pull request, there was no validation of XML comments in test code, so this pull request strictly increases the amount of validation performed.
@TomFinley
TomFinley
merged commit f7a5526
into
dotnet:masterJul 9, 2018
@sharwell
sharwell
deleted the

enable-doc-comments

branch
July 10, 2018 02:21
eerhardt pushed a commit
to eerhardt/machinelearning
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 27, 2018
@sharwell@eerhardt
Fix failure to validate XML comments in test sources during builds (d…
b8a9973
…otnet#499)
@ghostghost
locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators
Mar 30, 2022
Sign up for freeto subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.


Reviewers


2 more reviewers

@markusweimermarkusweimermarkusweimer approved these changes
@TomFinleyTomFinleyTomFinley approved these changes
Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

Assignees


No one assigned


Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@sharwell@TomFinley@markusweimer

, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
injectUserscript("// Auto-enable theater mode on YouTube\n(function() {\n function tryTheater() {\n var btn = document.querySelector('button[aria-label=\"Theater mode\"], ytd-player #player button[title=\"Theater mode\"]');\n if (btn && !btn.classList.contains('activated')) {\n btn.click();\n }\n }\n \n // Try immediately\n tryTheater();\n \n // Try after navigation (SPA)\n var lastUrl = location.href;\n setInterval(function() {\n if (location.href !== lastUrl) {\n lastUrl = location.href;\n setTimeout(tryTheater, 500);\n }\n }, 1000);\n \n // Also try on player load\n var observer = new MutationObserver(tryTheater);\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "YouTube Theater Mode Default");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:YouTube Theater Mode Default]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '

Skip to content
Validate XML comments in test sources during builds - #499
Merged
TomFinley merged 1 commit into
dotnet:masterfrom 
sharwell:enable-doc-comments
Jul 9, 2018
Merged
Validate XML comments in test sources during builds#499
TomFinley merged 1 commit into
dotnet:masterfrom 
sharwell:enable-doc-comments
Conversation
@sharwell
@sharwellsharwell
commented
Jul 5, 2018•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
  • CS1573, CS1591, and CS1712 are disabled in test code (documentation is not required)
  • Other documentation warnings are enabled (documentation, when included, must be syntactically and semantically correct)
  • Fixes cases where comments were incorrect in the current code
Related to #434
⚠️Please do not rewrite/rebase/squash this pull request during the merge. Edit: relaxing this request for this pull request. ⚠️
markusweimer
markusweimer
approved these changes
Jul 5, 2018
View reviewed changes
@markusweimermarkusweimer
left a comment


Copy link


Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM
TomFinley
TomFinley
approved these changes
Jul 5, 2018
View reviewed changes
@TomFinleyTomFinley
left a comment


Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks @sharwell
@sharwellsharwell
mentioned this pull request
Jul 5, 2018
 Merged

@TomFinley
TomFinley
commented
Jul 5, 2018

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
So, I'd happily merge this @sharwell , but was curious about one thing you note:
Please do not rewrite/rebase/squash this pull request during the merge.
Why not squash? I doubt it would have any effect on your PR, since it consists of one commit anyway.
@sharwell
sharwell
commented
Jul 6, 2018•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
Why not squash? I doubt it would have any effect on your PR, since it consists of one commit anyway.
It's a strong personal preference to not have my commits rewritten. In the event the preference cannot be accommodated¹, I prefer to have the PR closed and I would stick to filing issues and code reviews. Based on the repository history it appears that the standard merge strategy is acceptable but infrequently used, which is why I went ahead and submitted the pull request but included the note with the preference.
¹ I have no hard feelings in this case; it's happened before and I'm sure it will happen again sometime. 😄
@TomFinley
TomFinley
commented
Jul 9, 2018•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Ah OK @sharwell . Hmmm. Sounds like there's a story there. Anyway, let's try this. I'll tell you the lines along which I was considering editing the commit message, and you can tell me if that's OK or not. Were I to merge without edit, the title would be, "Fix failure to validate XML comments in test sources during builds", which, frankly, I'm not 100% happy with since it mentions that something was fixed, but doesn't describe what was done. (It doesn't help that, even if we were to let people guess what was done, there are two obvious ways of doing it, suppressing validation vs. actually just fixing the comments so they pass validation, and arguably the latter is the more obvious common choice -- perhaps that it's "test" sources gives someone a hint, but I'd rather not have people rely on hints.)
So, I was going to change the thing to: "suppress XML comment validation in test code". If I was feeling especially feisty I might mention in the extended description (which is currently blank) what specific errors were addressed.
Would that level of edit be all right?
@sharwell
sharwell
commented
Jul 9, 2018•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
@TomFinley What about the PR title?
Validate XML comments in test sources during builds
We spoke on the phone and I'm OK with squash merging for this PR as a matter of repo policy. I'll keep the policy in consideration when deciding how to participate in the future.
suppress XML comment validation in test code
This would not be a correct statement. Prior to this pull request, there was no validation of XML comments in test code, so this pull request strictly increases the amount of validation performed.
@TomFinley
TomFinley
merged commit f7a5526
into
dotnet:masterJul 9, 2018
@sharwell
sharwell
deleted the

enable-doc-comments

branch
July 10, 2018 02:21
eerhardt pushed a commit
to eerhardt/machinelearning
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 27, 2018
@sharwell@eerhardt
Fix failure to validate XML comments in test sources during builds (d…
b8a9973
…otnet#499)
@ghostghost
locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators
Mar 30, 2022
Sign up for freeto subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.


Reviewers


2 more reviewers

@markusweimermarkusweimermarkusweimer approved these changes
@TomFinleyTomFinleyTomFinley approved these changes
Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

Assignees


No one assigned


Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@sharwell@TomFinley@markusweimer

, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
injectUserscript("// Remove or un-stick sticky/fixed headers that block content\n(function() {\n function unstick() {\n document.querySelectorAll('header, nav, [role=\"banner\"], .header, .navbar, .sticky, .fixed-top, [style*=\"position: fixed\"], [style*=\"position:sticky\"]').forEach(function(el) {\n if (el.style.position === 'fixed' || el.style.position === 'sticky' || \n getComputedStyle(el).position === 'fixed' || getComputedStyle(el).position === 'sticky') {\n el.style.position = 'static';\n el.style.top = 'auto';\n el.style.zIndex = 'auto';\n }\n });\n }\n \n unstick();\n \n var observer = new MutationObserver(unstick);\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true, attributes: true, attributeFilter: ['style', 'class'] });\n})();", "Kill Sticky Headers");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Kill Sticky Headers]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '

Skip to content
Validate XML comments in test sources during builds - #499
Merged
TomFinley merged 1 commit into
dotnet:masterfrom 
sharwell:enable-doc-comments
Jul 9, 2018
Merged
Validate XML comments in test sources during builds#499
TomFinley merged 1 commit into
dotnet:masterfrom 
sharwell:enable-doc-comments
Conversation
@sharwell
@sharwellsharwell
commented
Jul 5, 2018•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
  • CS1573, CS1591, and CS1712 are disabled in test code (documentation is not required)
  • Other documentation warnings are enabled (documentation, when included, must be syntactically and semantically correct)
  • Fixes cases where comments were incorrect in the current code
Related to #434
⚠️Please do not rewrite/rebase/squash this pull request during the merge. Edit: relaxing this request for this pull request. ⚠️
markusweimer
markusweimer
approved these changes
Jul 5, 2018
View reviewed changes
@markusweimermarkusweimer
left a comment


Copy link


Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM
TomFinley
TomFinley
approved these changes
Jul 5, 2018
View reviewed changes
@TomFinleyTomFinley
left a comment


Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks @sharwell
@sharwellsharwell
mentioned this pull request
Jul 5, 2018
 Merged

@TomFinley
TomFinley
commented
Jul 5, 2018

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
So, I'd happily merge this @sharwell , but was curious about one thing you note:
Please do not rewrite/rebase/squash this pull request during the merge.
Why not squash? I doubt it would have any effect on your PR, since it consists of one commit anyway.
@sharwell
sharwell
commented
Jul 6, 2018•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
Why not squash? I doubt it would have any effect on your PR, since it consists of one commit anyway.
It's a strong personal preference to not have my commits rewritten. In the event the preference cannot be accommodated¹, I prefer to have the PR closed and I would stick to filing issues and code reviews. Based on the repository history it appears that the standard merge strategy is acceptable but infrequently used, which is why I went ahead and submitted the pull request but included the note with the preference.
¹ I have no hard feelings in this case; it's happened before and I'm sure it will happen again sometime. 😄
@TomFinley
TomFinley
commented
Jul 9, 2018•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Ah OK @sharwell . Hmmm. Sounds like there's a story there. Anyway, let's try this. I'll tell you the lines along which I was considering editing the commit message, and you can tell me if that's OK or not. Were I to merge without edit, the title would be, "Fix failure to validate XML comments in test sources during builds", which, frankly, I'm not 100% happy with since it mentions that something was fixed, but doesn't describe what was done. (It doesn't help that, even if we were to let people guess what was done, there are two obvious ways of doing it, suppressing validation vs. actually just fixing the comments so they pass validation, and arguably the latter is the more obvious common choice -- perhaps that it's "test" sources gives someone a hint, but I'd rather not have people rely on hints.)
So, I was going to change the thing to: "suppress XML comment validation in test code". If I was feeling especially feisty I might mention in the extended description (which is currently blank) what specific errors were addressed.
Would that level of edit be all right?
@sharwell
sharwell
commented
Jul 9, 2018•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
@TomFinley What about the PR title?
Validate XML comments in test sources during builds
We spoke on the phone and I'm OK with squash merging for this PR as a matter of repo policy. I'll keep the policy in consideration when deciding how to participate in the future.
suppress XML comment validation in test code
This would not be a correct statement. Prior to this pull request, there was no validation of XML comments in test code, so this pull request strictly increases the amount of validation performed.
@TomFinley
TomFinley
merged commit f7a5526
into
dotnet:masterJul 9, 2018
@sharwell
sharwell
deleted the

enable-doc-comments

branch
July 10, 2018 02:21
eerhardt pushed a commit
to eerhardt/machinelearning
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 27, 2018
@sharwell@eerhardt
Fix failure to validate XML comments in test sources during builds (d…
b8a9973
…otnet#499)
@ghostghost
locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators
Mar 30, 2022
Sign up for freeto subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.


Reviewers


2 more reviewers

@markusweimermarkusweimermarkusweimer approved these changes
@TomFinleyTomFinleyTomFinley approved these changes
Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

Assignees


No one assigned


Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@sharwell@TomFinley@markusweimer

, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
injectUserscript("// Universal Dark Mode - works on any site\n(function() {\n var enabled = true;\n \n function applyDarkMode() {\n if (!enabled) return;\n \n // Create style element if it doesn't exist\n var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');\n if (!style) {\n style = document.createElement('style');\n style.id = 'universal-dark-mode-style';\n document.head.appendChild(style);\n }\n \n // Dark mode CSS - inverts colors but preserves images/video\n style.textContent = '\n /* Invert everything except media */\n html {\n filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;\n background: #1a1a2e !important;\n }\n \n /* Restore images, videos, iframes, canvas */\n img, video, iframe, canvas, svg, picture, [style*=\"background-image\"] {\n filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;\n }\n \n /* Preserve specific elements that should not be inverted */\n .no-dark-mode, .no-dark-mode *,\n [data-theme=\"light\"], [data-theme=\"light\"],\n .ace_editor, .ace_editor *,\n .CodeMirror, .CodeMirror *,\n .monaco-editor, .monaco-editor *,\n .markdown-body pre, .markdown-body pre *,\n .highlight, .highlight *,\n pre code, pre code * {\n filter: none !important;\n }\n \n /* Fix common UI elements */\n .modal, .popup, .dropdown-menu, .tooltip, .popover {\n filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;\n background: #2d2d44 !important;\n border-color: #444 !important;\n }\n \n /* Scrollbars */\n ::-webkit-scrollbar { background: #1a1a2e !important; }\n ::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb { background: #444 !important; }\n ::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb:hover { background: #555 !important; }\n \n /* Selection */\n ::selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }\n ::-moz-selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }\n ';\n }\n \n function removeDarkMode() {\n var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');\n if (style) style.remove();\n }\n \n // Toggle with Alt+Shift+D\n document.addEventListener('keydown', function(e) {\n if (e.altKey && e.shiftKey && e.key === 'D') {\n e.preventDefault();\n enabled = !enabled;\n if (enabled) {\n applyDarkMode();\n console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Enabled');\n } else {\n removeDarkMode();\n console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Disabled');\n }\n }\n });\n \n // Apply on load\n applyDarkMode();\n \n // Re-apply on dynamic content\n var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {\n if (enabled && !document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style')) {\n applyDarkMode();\n }\n });\n observer.observe(document.head, { childList: true });\n \n console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Loaded - Press Alt+Shift+D to toggle');\n})();", "Universal Dark Mode");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Universal Dark Mode]', __e); }
})();
})();

Skip to content
Validate XML comments in test sources during builds - #499
Merged
TomFinley merged 1 commit into
dotnet:masterfrom 
sharwell:enable-doc-comments
Jul 9, 2018
Merged
Validate XML comments in test sources during builds#499
TomFinley merged 1 commit into
dotnet:masterfrom 
sharwell:enable-doc-comments
Conversation
@sharwell
@sharwellsharwell
commented
Jul 5, 2018•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
  • CS1573, CS1591, and CS1712 are disabled in test code (documentation is not required)
  • Other documentation warnings are enabled (documentation, when included, must be syntactically and semantically correct)
  • Fixes cases where comments were incorrect in the current code
Related to #434
⚠️Please do not rewrite/rebase/squash this pull request during the merge. Edit: relaxing this request for this pull request. ⚠️
markusweimer
markusweimer
approved these changes
Jul 5, 2018
View reviewed changes
@markusweimermarkusweimer
left a comment


Copy link


Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM
TomFinley
TomFinley
approved these changes
Jul 5, 2018
View reviewed changes
@TomFinleyTomFinley
left a comment


Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks @sharwell
@sharwellsharwell
mentioned this pull request
Jul 5, 2018
 Merged

@TomFinley
TomFinley
commented
Jul 5, 2018

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
So, I'd happily merge this @sharwell , but was curious about one thing you note:
Please do not rewrite/rebase/squash this pull request during the merge.
Why not squash? I doubt it would have any effect on your PR, since it consists of one commit anyway.
@sharwell
sharwell
commented
Jul 6, 2018•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
Why not squash? I doubt it would have any effect on your PR, since it consists of one commit anyway.
It's a strong personal preference to not have my commits rewritten. In the event the preference cannot be accommodated¹, I prefer to have the PR closed and I would stick to filing issues and code reviews. Based on the repository history it appears that the standard merge strategy is acceptable but infrequently used, which is why I went ahead and submitted the pull request but included the note with the preference.
¹ I have no hard feelings in this case; it's happened before and I'm sure it will happen again sometime. 😄
@TomFinley
TomFinley
commented
Jul 9, 2018•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Ah OK @sharwell . Hmmm. Sounds like there's a story there. Anyway, let's try this. I'll tell you the lines along which I was considering editing the commit message, and you can tell me if that's OK or not. Were I to merge without edit, the title would be, "Fix failure to validate XML comments in test sources during builds", which, frankly, I'm not 100% happy with since it mentions that something was fixed, but doesn't describe what was done. (It doesn't help that, even if we were to let people guess what was done, there are two obvious ways of doing it, suppressing validation vs. actually just fixing the comments so they pass validation, and arguably the latter is the more obvious common choice -- perhaps that it's "test" sources gives someone a hint, but I'd rather not have people rely on hints.)
So, I was going to change the thing to: "suppress XML comment validation in test code". If I was feeling especially feisty I might mention in the extended description (which is currently blank) what specific errors were addressed.
Would that level of edit be all right?
@sharwell
sharwell
commented
Jul 9, 2018•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
@TomFinley What about the PR title?
Validate XML comments in test sources during builds
We spoke on the phone and I'm OK with squash merging for this PR as a matter of repo policy. I'll keep the policy in consideration when deciding how to participate in the future.
suppress XML comment validation in test code
This would not be a correct statement. Prior to this pull request, there was no validation of XML comments in test code, so this pull request strictly increases the amount of validation performed.
@TomFinley
TomFinley
merged commit f7a5526
into
dotnet:masterJul 9, 2018
@sharwell
sharwell
deleted the

enable-doc-comments

branch
July 10, 2018 02:21
eerhardt pushed a commit
to eerhardt/machinelearning
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 27, 2018
@sharwell@eerhardt
Fix failure to validate XML comments in test sources during builds (d…
b8a9973
…otnet#499)
@ghostghost
locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators
Mar 30, 2022
Sign up for freeto subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.


Reviewers


2 more reviewers

@markusweimermarkusweimermarkusweimer approved these changes
@TomFinleyTomFinleyTomFinley approved these changes
Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

Assignees


No one assigned


Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@sharwell@TomFinley@markusweimer