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

178 fix traverse result a #185

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Oct 18, 2022
Merged

178 fix traverse result a #185

merged 5 commits into from
Oct 18, 2022

Conversation

TheAngryByrd
Copy link
Collaborator

Proposed Changes

Fixes #178 and #168

Types of changes

What types of changes does your code introduce to FsToolkit.ErrorHandling?
Put an x in the boxes that apply and remove ones that don't apply

  • Bugfix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
  • Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)

Checklist

Put an x in the boxes that apply. You can also fill these out after creating the PR. If you're unsure about any of them, don't hesitate to ask. We're here to help! This is simply a reminder of what we are going to look for before merging your code.

  • Build and tests pass locally
  • I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works (if appropriate)
  • I have added necessary documentation (if appropriate)

Further comments

If this is a relatively large or complex change, kick off the discussion by explaining why you chose the solution you did and what alternatives you considered, etc...

@TheAngryByrd TheAngryByrd merged commit 5c8c84e into master Oct 18, 2022
TheAngryByrd added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 18, 2022
- [Fixes List.traverseA memory issues](#185)
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

List.traverseResultA and friends have x @ y on the error branch, this could potentially blow up
1 participant