Split out ForceCloseHandles into two methods#8134
Conversation
JoshLove-msft
requested review from
amnguye,
seanmcc-msft and
tg-msft
as code owners
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nit - can we swap the parameter ordering for marker and recursive? We should leave marker just in case for completeness, but it's pretty useless now that we're looping for the user.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This needs to change. We're going to wrap this in a loop that continues executing until no additional marker is returned or it throws.
JoshLove-msft
force-pushed
the
close-handles
branch
2 times, most recently
from
2eef790 to
69bf4d7
Compare
tg-msft
left a comment
tg-msft
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
A few style nits, but it looks good
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I actually added that intentionally to separate the return a bit as it was kind of hard to read with the while condition right above it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nit - add the parameters one per line
JoshLove-msft
force-pushed
the
close-handles
branch
2 times, most recently
from
38b10d0 to
d7d850a
Compare
|
/azp run net - storage - ci |
1 similar comment
|
/azp run net - storage - ci |
JoshLove-msft
force-pushed
the
close-handles
branch
from
d7d850a to
22c1599
Compare
|
/azp run net - storage - ci |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
2 participants
Fixes #8075
We should probably look into how to add test cases for when handles are actually open.