Fix error pointer checks #701
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
GLinnik21
approved these changes
Sep 6, 2025
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull Request Overview
This PR fixes incorrect error handling in JSON serialization/deserialization operations by checking the actual return values instead of error pointers. The changes improve the reliability of error detection when working with JSON data.
- Corrects error checking logic to verify return values rather than error parameters
- Fixes three instances where error pointer checks were preventing proper error detection
- Ensures consistent error handling patterns across JSON operations
|
thanks for the review! |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
I saw a few stray error pointer checks that should be checking the returned value from the API being called instead.
There was one more that I didn't address since it looks harmless (but still seems incorrect):