Skip to content

Conversation

@sstronin
Copy link
Contributor

@sstronin sstronin commented Mar 5, 2024

There are some null checks probably missing for internal DataSet reference

@ghost ghost added the area-System.Data label Mar 5, 2024
@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Mar 5, 2024

Tagging subscribers to this area: @roji, @ajcvickers
See info in area-owners.md if you want to be subscribed.

Issue Details

There are some null checks probably missing for internal DataSet reference

Author: sstronin
Assignees: -
Labels:

area-System.Data

Milestone: -

@roji
Copy link
Member

roji commented Mar 5, 2024

@sstronin are you able to reproduce the bug in a test? If not, this is generally old code that we're no longer actively developing, and we'd like prefer to not change it (and risk breakage) for a theoretical problem that doesn't exist in practice...

@sstronin
Copy link
Contributor Author

sstronin commented Mar 7, 2024

This was found by a code analyzer and it looks obvious enough. If a test is required, I'll elaborate the issue a bit later

@roji
Copy link
Member

roji commented Mar 8, 2024

This was found by a code analyzer and it looks obvious enough.

                else if(_ds != null)

This change doesn't look like a fully obvious, automated change - it's a behavioral change that results in a different namespace being returned. I'm not saying the change necessarily isn't correct, but I'd want us to fully understand the impact on user behavior and the benefit of the change. As I wrote above, this is mostly considered legacy code by now, and avoiding accidental regressions and behavioral changes is prioritized over changes where there's no clear benefit.

@stephentoub
Copy link
Member

This change doesn't look like a fully obvious, automated change - it's a behavioral change that results in a different namespace being returned. I'm not saying the change necessarily isn't correct, but I'd want us to fully understand the impact on user behavior and the benefit of the change. As I wrote above, this is mostly considered legacy code by now, and avoiding accidental regressions and behavioral changes is prioritized over changes where there's no clear benefit.

Given this changes behavior, we don't fully understand the impact, there's no existing test coverage plus no new tests being added, and it hasn't progressed in several months, I'm going to close this. We can reopen/revisit when it's appropriate to do so. @sstronin, thanks for trying to improve things here.

@github-actions github-actions bot locked and limited conversation to collaborators Aug 22, 2024
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants