Skip to content

Conversation

@Carti-it
Copy link

@Carti-it Carti-it commented Feb 9, 2026

This is a part of Felipe's PR which I slightly refactored. Felipe's original idea is captured by this snippet: https://github.com/kekyo/FlashCap/pull/171/changes#diff-828f820312b1a627c03e0e1ad658644159d006400607c23da042e4d5609d8865R59-R71. I used a guard method ValidateHandle(nameof(<FromWhichMethodCalled>));

The goal of this PR is to create a smaller more digestible chunk of #171 which is quite big for review and I believe it needs a bit more work to finish it.

cc @ffquintella
cc @kekyo

Carti-it and others added 3 commits February 9, 2026 21:54
Co-authored-by: Felipe Quintella <felipe@quintella.com>
Co-authored-by: Felipe Quintella <felipe@quintella.com>
Co-authored-by: Felipe Quintella <felipe@quintella.com>
@kekyo
Copy link
Owner

kekyo commented Feb 10, 2026

Thank you both, @ffquintella and @Carti-it!

I briefly looked at Carti's PR. Is it correct to interpret these as further modifications to some of Felipe's fixes?

Since Carti's PR has its branch starting point set to develop HEAD, I'm not entirely sure how to proceed. Is it correct to interpret that applying Carti's PR after applying Felipe's PR is the better approach?

@Carti-it
Copy link
Author

I briefly looked at Carti's PR. Is it correct to interpret these as further modifications to some of Felipe's fixes?

This PR is more like "one of Felipe's ideas extracted from #174 to a smaller PR" so one can ideally trivially say "It looks OK to me or Felipe's approach is better".

To answer simply, I think it makes sense to review this PR first and #175 second.

(If this PR is merged, Felipe or me can work on incorporating changes to #174 (I would simply create a new PR). I have some time on my hand, so I can do it. Help from @ffquintella is welcome, of course.)

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.

2 participants