Some code clean ups. #3500

dromato · 2015-11-07T17:10:54Z

Nothing that could change logic or application flow, just minor refactors to be consistent with good practices and clean code.
To sum up changes:

Simplified some conditions
Changed small l to L in long number, as l tends to look like 1 and might confuse
Removed "return" statements where those are not necessary (last instruction in function)
Inlined returns where there were no need for creating new variable (easier to read)
Deleted unnecessary colons

akarnokd · 2015-11-07T17:14:31Z

src/main/java/rx/internal/operators/OnSubscribeRedo.java

@@ -195,7 +195,7 @@ public void call(final Subscriber<? super T> child) {
        final AtomicBoolean resumeBoundary = new AtomicBoolean(true);

        // incremented when requests are made, decremented when requests are fulfilled
-        final AtomicLong consumerCapacity = new AtomicLong(0l);
+        final AtomicLong consumerCapacity = new AtomicLong(0L);


Unnecessary default value.

akarnokd · 2015-11-07T17:19:02Z

src/main/java/rx/internal/operators/OperatorZip.java

@@ -112,8 +112,7 @@ public OperatorZip(Func9 f) {
        final Zip<R> zipper = new Zip<R>(child, zipFunction);
        final ZipProducer<R> producer = new ZipProducer<R>(zipper);
        child.setProducer(producer);
-        final ZipSubscriber subscriber = new ZipSubscriber(child, zipper, producer);
-        return subscriber;
+        return new ZipSubscriber(child, zipper, producer);


This will conflict with a zip patch. Could you undo this?

akarnokd · 2015-11-07T17:25:06Z

Could you also squash the commits?

dromato · 2015-11-07T17:55:41Z

Squashed :)

akarnokd · 2015-11-07T17:59:55Z

👍

artem-zinnatullin · 2015-11-07T18:23:46Z

src/test/java/rx/internal/util/IndexedRingBufferTest.java

-                } else {
-                    return true;
-                }
+                return i++ != 2;


Programming on side effects 😿

Well I didn't want to change any existing logic there...
I don't know code base well enough to feel comfortable with that.
I could take that "i++" one separate line higher.

I could take that "i++" one separate line higher.

That's why I don't like such code, it's non-obvious (but short), in fact, "post ++" will be applied after the condition check, so correct transformation would be:

final boolean result = i != 2; i++; return result;

At least, we don't have undefined behavior here, so, you can leave it as is, but personally, I'd rewrite it.

i++; return i != 3;

Should also be fine, right?
We increment both sides by 1.

My pleasure 😃

artem-zinnatullin · 2015-11-07T18:27:07Z

👍

Nothing that could change logic or application flow, just minor refactors to be consistent with good practices and clean code.

abersnaze · 2015-11-08T02:59:33Z

looks good.

Some code clean ups.

akarnokd reviewed Nov 7, 2015
View reviewed changes

akarnokd added the Cleanup label Nov 7, 2015

akarnokd reviewed Nov 7, 2015
View reviewed changes

dromato force-pushed the 1.x branch from 3162639 to d7183a8 Compare November 7, 2015 17:51

artem-zinnatullin reviewed Nov 7, 2015
View reviewed changes

Some code clean ups.

5427db8

Nothing that could change logic or application flow, just minor refactors to be consistent with good practices and clean code.

dromato force-pushed the 1.x branch from d7183a8 to 5427db8 Compare November 7, 2015 18:45

abersnaze added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 8, 2015

Merge pull request #3500 from dromato/1.x

36c50f9

Some code clean ups.

abersnaze merged commit 36c50f9 into ReactiveX:1.x Nov 8, 2015

Some code clean ups. #3500

Some code clean ups. #3500

Uh oh!

Conversation

dromato commented Nov 7, 2015

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

akarnokd commented Nov 7, 2015

Uh oh!

dromato commented Nov 7, 2015

Uh oh!

akarnokd commented Nov 7, 2015

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

artem-zinnatullin commented Nov 7, 2015

Uh oh!

abersnaze commented Nov 8, 2015

Uh oh!

Uh oh!