Summary:
See the code comment re: why don't we also recommend "strict" at this
stage. We can always change it later when we think users are happy with
strict.
Reviewed By: artempyanykh
Differential Revision: D21039553
fbshipit-source-id: 758ccf32c
Summary:
This diff is a step forward to the state when the list of type violations is
independent of the mode (and we use mode solely to decide re: whether to
report or not).
This fixes a case when we incorrectly defined possible promo mode (see
the test payload)
Reviewed By: artempyanykh
Differential Revision: D20948897
fbshipit-source-id: 616b96f96
Summary:
See the comments in the code why it makes logical sense.
This diff is a step forward the state when list of type violations is
independent of the mode (and we use mode solely to decide re: whether to
report or not).
This fixes majority of cases in ModePromotions.java
Reviewed By: artempyanykh
Differential Revision: D20948656
fbshipit-source-id: 82c0d530b
Summary:
Previously, we learned to detect if Default mode class can be made
Nullsafe(LOCAL).
Lets generalize it and calculate the precise mode.
NOTE 1: We don't distinct shades of "Trust some". We also don't
recommend trust some and recommend "Trust all" instead.
NOTE 2: As you can see from the test payload (see ModePromotions.java),
the precise calculation is not working as expected. This is due to a bug
in nullsafe implementation/design. See follow up diffs that will fix
this test.
Reviewed By: artempyanykh
Differential Revision: D20941345
fbshipit-source-id: 2255359ba
Mitya Lyubarskiy