[App Check] Remove unused forward declaration #12167
Closed
Conversation
This file contains 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
|
Hi @sunmou99, the API diff report workflow seems to be having trouble with this PR. Could you please take a look? |
|
Looks like this was already done in #12067 |
|
And maybe that's why the apidiff test is failing? |
Good catch, @paulb777. Specifically, here: a832979#diff-a5e6bbe376196aed5e2c5abe55cc87825304549ef1c61d1ce5810aa4a2cb023d |
|
Ah, I missed that. Thanks y'all. I'm not sure even how I came across it. I think I followed a permalink to a dated commit and then came across the old version of the header. |
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This line has existed within the public header for a few years. The line forward declares a protocol that (1) does not exist, and (2) is not referenced elsewhere within the header.
I don't think this is a breaking change because any client trying to reference the protocol from importing this header would need to provide an interface for the type themselves. But, I would appreciate feedback here on whether this sounds like a breaking change or not. And also if you think this needs a changelog entry.
#no-changelog