Skip to content

Conversation

@deepika-u
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Oct 29, 2025

Test Results

 3 018 files  ±0   3 018 suites  ±0   2h 25m 30s ⏱️ + 2m 26s
 8 234 tests ±0   7 985 ✅ ±0  249 💤 ±0  0 ❌ ±0 
23 622 runs  ±0  22 828 ✅ ±0  794 💤 ±0  0 ❌ ±0 

Results for commit 75c1bb7. ± Comparison against base commit 3a441d9.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

@deepika-u deepika-u force-pushed the deprecated_constants3 branch 3 times, most recently from bc66787 to 614510a Compare October 31, 2025 06:34
Copy link
Contributor

@merks merks left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't think we should remove a method for which there is no replacement. The original deprecation seems bogus.

*/
@Deprecated
@Deprecated(forRemoval = true, since = "2025-12")
protected Label getErrorMessageLabel() {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is kind of odd because it doesn't actually specify a replacement and there is no replacement.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

oh ok. So reverting this change.
But how do i get to understand it is not supposed to be marked for removal? Because i dont see any references as such for this.

@deepika-u deepika-u force-pushed the deprecated_constants3 branch from 614510a to b6f588e Compare October 31, 2025 10:06
@deepika-u deepika-u force-pushed the deprecated_constants3 branch from b6f588e to 75c1bb7 Compare October 31, 2025 10:06
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