Fix in locking cache check #27818
Merged
Fix in locking cache check #27818
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
The intention obviously was to check whether $lockingCacheClass is defined, and existing class, and available. It was however checked whether the $distributedCacheClass is an existing class, which would have caused an exception already in the previous distributed cache check. Signed-off-by: MichaIng <[email protected]>
Pytal
approved these changes
Jul 6, 2021
nickvergessen
approved these changes
Jul 6, 2021
Member
Author
|
/backport to stable22 |
Member
Author
|
/backport to stable21 |
Member
Author
|
/backport to stable20 |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
The intention obviously was to check whether $lockingCacheClass is defined, and existing class, and available. It was however checked whether the $distributedCacheClass is an existing class, which, if not, would have caused an exception in the previous distributed cache check already.