Skip to content

Say "Checks that _x_," not "Fails if _!x_." #1458

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jun 3, 2025
Merged

Conversation

copybara-service[bot]
Copy link
Contributor

Say "Checks that x," not "Fails if !x."

We've moved a bit in this direction over the years, and now I'm trying to push us the rest of the way.

I did most of this with regex search and replace, so it's likely that I've introduced the sorts of errors you might expect from that (in addition to whatever errors I have introduced by hand :)). To aid the automation, I did end up stamping out phrases like "Checks that the string...," as previously discussed in cl/766689205... only to reintroduce them for some types. I hope that we are at least now largely consistent within a given type.

Just to make things interesting, I've tweaked phrasing in a few other ways. The most notable change is to back out some discussion of duplicates from methods like containsNoneOf. That discussion was introduced in cl/130379377, so of course push back if it seems worth keeping.

RELNOTES=n/a

We've moved a bit in this direction over the years, and now I'm trying to push us the rest of the way.

I did most of this with regex search and replace, so it's likely that I've introduced the sorts of errors you might expect from that (in addition to whatever errors I have introduced by hand :)). To aid the automation, I did end up stamping out phrases like "Checks that _the string_...," as previously discussed in cl/766689205... only to reintroduce them for _some_ types. I hope that we are at least now largely consistent within a given type.

Just to make things interesting, I've tweaked phrasing in a few other ways. The most notable change is to back out some discussion of duplicates from methods like `containsNoneOf`. That discussion was introduced in cl/130379377, so of course push back if it seems worth keeping.

RELNOTES=n/a
PiperOrigin-RevId: 766810480
@copybara-service copybara-service bot merged commit 197f633 into master Jun 3, 2025
@copybara-service copybara-service bot deleted the test_766761586 branch June 3, 2025 20:59
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant