fix(NODE-3510): omit incorrect | void in declaration of Promise overload of rename()
#2922
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
One of the TS overloaded declarations for `rename()` had a `| void` which AFAIK is incorrect. If a method returns a `Promise`, it should never be typed `| void`.
nbbeeken
approved these changes
Aug 2, 2021
dariakp
approved these changes
Aug 2, 2021
dariakp
changed the title
| void in declaration of Promise overload of rename()| void in declaration of Promise overload of rename()
nbbeeken
changed the title
| void in declaration of Promise overload of rename()| void in declaration of Promise overload of rename()
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Description
One of the TS overloaded declarations for
rename()had a| voidwhich AFAIK is incorrect. If a method returns aPromise, it should never be typed| void. The problem doesn't show up in any other overload declarations, so I assume this was just a bug, not a statement about weird behavior of this method.What changed?
I removed the
| voidfor this overload's declaration.Are there any files to ignore?
No.