Merged
Conversation
|
LGTM |
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Today our internal
isValidUPCchecks if the input can be standardized and if yes, it returns true. It creates a kind of confusion because the UPCs passing the validator isn't a valid upc on it's own until it is standardized. For this purpose, I've added aUPC.isValidhere itself which checks if the input and the standardized version of the input is the same.I feel this makes the contract of isValidUPC more clear and don't assume that someone downstream should standardize the upc before consuming them.