Commit a9ec21b regression new asset already exists#1966
Closed
lechristianfillon wants to merge 4 commits intocgwire:mainfrom
Closed
Commit a9ec21b regression new asset already exists#1966lechristianfillon wants to merge 4 commits intocgwire:mainfrom
lechristianfillon wants to merge 4 commits intocgwire:mainfrom
Conversation
a new asset that already exists.
Contributor
Author
|
Sorry, I was late in pushing this correction; it has since been made by Nicolas in the PR #1964 |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Problem
In this pull request (#1937), there's a change to the error handling when creating a character with an already existing name.
This change seems motivated by compliance with an ESLint rule regarding promises.
This fix results in a blocking error in this scenario.
Screen shot in issue description: #879
Solution
Looking more closely at the motivation related to ESLint, I see that it only applies to situations where
Promise.rejectis included in a.then()statement, which isn't the case here.Reverting to the initial version eliminates the ESLint alert and corrects the regression. Therefore, I suggest we revert to the previous change.