Replies: 2 comments 4 replies
-
We can remove the redundant checks. But we might need some extra unit tests to make sure exceptions are still raised? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
3 replies
-
Note: If you are ok with this too, I will do another PR, the current one focusing on |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
1 reply
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
👋
MagickGeometry
has internal check for dimensions (Percentage of absolute)Magick.NET/src/Magick.NET/Types/MagickGeometry.cs
Lines 50 to 55 in 708c592
Magick.NET/src/Magick.NET/Types/MagickGeometry.cs
Lines 322 to 325 in 708c592
On some method (in
MagickImage
as example), same check hasMagickGeometry
is done:Magick.NET/src/Magick.NET/MagickImage.cs
Lines 3474 to 3479 in 708c592
On some others, it's not:
Magick.NET/src/Magick.NET/MagickImage.cs
Lines 3894 to 3897 in 708c592
What do you prefer? Double check or reducing redundant calls?
I will do a PR to unify all checks depending on your preference.
Regards.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions