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

Remove unneeded duplicate check for pydantic v1 since we are already checking that in the else block. #2467

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Apr 30, 2024

Conversation

beyonddream
Copy link
Contributor

@beyonddream beyonddream commented Apr 21, 2024

Why are these changes needed?

Minor refactor to remove unneeded pydantic v1 check in the else block. No functional change.

Related issue number

Checks

@beyonddream
Copy link
Contributor Author

@microsoft-github-policy-service agree

@beyonddream please read the following Contributor License Agreement(CLA). If you agree with the CLA, please reply with the following information.

@microsoft-github-policy-service agree [company="{your company}"]

Options:

  • (default - no company specified) I have sole ownership of intellectual property rights to my Submissions and I am not making Submissions in the course of work for my employer.
@microsoft-github-policy-service agree
  • (when company given) I am making Submissions in the course of work for my employer (or my employer has intellectual property rights in my Submissions by contract or applicable law). I have permission from my employer to make Submissions and enter into this Agreement on behalf of my employer. By signing below, the defined term “You” includes me and my employer.
@microsoft-github-policy-service agree company="Microsoft"

Contributor License Agreement

@microsoft-github-policy-service agree

Copy link

gitguardian bot commented Apr 21, 2024

️✅ There are no secrets present in this pull request anymore.

If these secrets were true positive and are still valid, we highly recommend you to revoke them.
Once a secret has been leaked into a git repository, you should consider it compromised, even if it was deleted immediately.
Find here more information about risks.


🦉 GitGuardian detects secrets in your source code to help developers and security teams secure the modern development process. You are seeing this because you or someone else with access to this repository has authorized GitGuardian to scan your pull request.

Our GitHub checks need improvements? Share your feedbacks!

@beyonddream beyonddream force-pushed the feat/minor-refactoring branch from ef7c6d7 to 59487dd Compare April 21, 2024 08:14
@ekzhu ekzhu requested a review from davorrunje April 21, 2024 08:51
@beyonddream beyonddream changed the title Remove unneeded duplicate check for pydantic v1 since we are already in the else block. Remove unneeded duplicate check for pydantic v1 since we are already checking that in the else block. Apr 23, 2024
@beyonddream beyonddream force-pushed the feat/minor-refactoring branch from 59487dd to 78214bf Compare April 23, 2024 14:40
@beyonddream
Copy link
Contributor Author

gentle ping for review! /cc @davorrunje @ekzhu

@beyonddream beyonddream force-pushed the feat/minor-refactoring branch from 380c249 to 62ab993 Compare April 27, 2024 21:56
@beyonddream beyonddream force-pushed the feat/minor-refactoring branch from 62ab993 to e67fb64 Compare April 28, 2024 14:59
@ekzhu ekzhu added this pull request to the merge queue Apr 30, 2024
@ekzhu
Copy link
Collaborator

ekzhu commented Apr 30, 2024

Thanks for spotting

Merged via the queue into microsoft:main with commit ba9ff45 Apr 30, 2024
69 of 82 checks passed
jayralencar pushed a commit to jayralencar/autogen that referenced this pull request May 28, 2024
…checking that in the else block. (microsoft#2467)

* Remove unneeded duplicate check for pydantic v1 since we are already in
the else block.

* fix formatting
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.

2 participants