[release/9.1] avoid duplicate evaluation in ResolveConnectionStringReferenceAsync #7718
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
![github-actions[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/15368?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
adamint
requested review from
eerhardt,
davidfowl and
danmoseley
and removed request for
eerhardt
|
Closing and reopening to get all tests to run. See Tests don't run on PRs opened by the backport bot (dotnet/aspire#7719) |
eerhardt
approved these changes
Feb 20, 2025
|
does not meet current bar as i understand that there's no perceptible functional impact |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Backport of #7714 (I closed the previous backport PR, which cannot be reopened if the branch is force-pushed to, as happens in the github action)
/cc @adamint
Customer Impact
Minimal (removes one extra evaluation each time a connection string ref is resolved)
Testing
Covered by existing unit tests, logic has not changed.
Risk
Low, as the underlying behavior has not changed, is not a complicated diff, and this behavior is covered by unit tests
Regression?
No, fowler wanted backport