Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

2.x: make internal naming consistent, refactor some classes 9/14-2 #4554

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Sep 14, 2016

Conversation

akarnokd
Copy link
Member

  • Make internal naming of components consistent with the base reactive type
  • move io.reactivex.internal.subscribers.flowable.* to io.reactivex.internal.subscribers
  • move io.reactivex.internal.subscribers.observable.* to io.reactivex.internal.observers

@akarnokd akarnokd added this to the 2.0 RC 3 milestone Sep 14, 2016
@codecov-io
Copy link

Current coverage is 78.62% (diff: 90.10%)

Merging #4554 into 2.x will increase coverage by 0.01%

@@                2.x      #4554   diff @@
==========================================
  Files           528        528          
  Lines         35270      35266     -4   
  Methods           0          0          
  Messages          0          0          
  Branches       5476       5474     -2   
==========================================
+ Hits          27728      27729     +1   
+ Misses         5562       5560     -2   
+ Partials       1980       1977     -3   

Powered by Codecov. Last update 6ff866a...4eb1414

@akarnokd akarnokd merged commit 4017e26 into ReactiveX:2.x Sep 14, 2016
@akarnokd akarnokd deleted the ObservableNoSubscribeMention branch September 14, 2016 19:58
@abersnaze
Copy link
Contributor

oh god the rebasing.

@akarnokd
Copy link
Member Author

@abersnaze I recommend you post one or two operator changes at a time as it is likely they need some extra changes until they match structure I expect (such as in Maybe.isEmpty()). This way, you don't have large interference from cascading fixes in the 2.x branch.

@abersnaze
Copy link
Contributor

Its hard because they are so intertwined.

On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 1:49 PM, David Karnok notifications@github.com
wrote:

@abersnaze https://github.com/abersnaze I recommend you post one or two
operator changes at a time as it is likely they need some extra changes
until they match structure I expect (such as in Maybe.isEmpty()). This way,
you don't have large interference from cascading fixes in the 2.x branch.


You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#4554 (comment),
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAYyFjBp0eMUxNra_DLbVbJnwaDL-By6ks5qqF3TgaJpZM4J9KbF
.

@akarnokd
Copy link
Member Author

I've run out of ideas about what to clean up so you should have no interference from me in the following days.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants