Improve quark parsing message #672
Merged
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
Fixes openrewrite#671. As suggested in the discussion, change the message to indicate that quark files are not parsed. Also change the unit from "Mb" to "MB", since "Mb" indicates Megabit. Add a blank between numbers and unit for readability and to be consistent with output in other parts of the code.
timtebeek
approved these changes
Dec 2, 2023
timtebeek
added
documentation
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Fixes #671.
As suggested in the discussion, change the message to indicate that quark files are not parsed.
Also change the unit from "Mb" to "MB", since "Mb" indicates Megabit. Add a blank between numbers and unit for readability and to be consistent with output in other parts of the code.
What's changed?
Only the log message which is emitted for large non parseable files.
What's your motivation?
Clarifies the confusion described in #671.