Removed bogus .Filter() overload#1013
Conversation
…upply filtering logic, resulting in all items always being filtered out.
|
Is it a breaking change if no one is using it? If it does not work, how could anyone be using it? Better safe than sorry, I guess. |
|
Normally with a breaking change we would bump the major version. However in this case, the overload is meaningless so should we keep the major version or bump? Thoughts? |
|
I'm a "technically correct is the best kind of correct" kinda person, so I say keep it a major bump. Except, I don't think there's any need to bother bumpibg it ONLY for this. I'd just have us hold onto it until the next time we have something to trigger a major bump that's actually meaningful. |
dwcullop
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM. Let's include it in the next major version bump release.
…upply filtering logic, resulting in all items always being filtered out. (#1013) Co-authored-by: Darrin W. Cullop <Darrin.Cullop@microsoft.com>
|
This pull request has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed. Please open a new issue for related bugs. |
Removed a bogus .Filter() overload that did not allow the consumer to supply filtering logic, resulting in all items always being filtered out.
This appears to have been mistakenly introduced during a refactor, in commit 3657fee.
This is a breaking change that we can just include the next time we happen to have a major version release. I don't think it's worth doing a cycle of marking this deprecated, as the operator is just fully-defective.