Skip to content

Fix documentation about struct RData's data field #14221

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Aug 14, 2025

Conversation

etiennebarrie
Copy link
Contributor

Also adds a static assertion to ensure the documented behavior stays true, namely that the data field is at the same position in the RData and RTypedData structs.

This was changed in 360be94. cc @byroot

Also adds a static assertion to ensure the documented behavior stays
true, namely that the data field is at the same position in the RData
and RTypedData structs.
@byroot byroot merged commit 5aa5112 into ruby:master Aug 14, 2025
45 checks passed
@nobu
Copy link
Member

nobu commented Aug 15, 2025

Do not mix code change into documentation change.

@junaruga
Copy link
Member

junaruga commented Aug 15, 2025

@etiennebarrie Let me explain more context that this PR's commit which caused the CI failures (#14229).

Previously, the CI skipped checks when a PR commit's title or message includes "document" (case insensitive), assuming the commit is only modifying the document. However, this PR's commit was using the title including "document", but actually modifying the code, and the PR skipped the CI checks.

So, we stopped skipping the CI when the commit title or message include "document" by the 70b4b6f.

There is still a logic to skip CI when a commit's title or message includes "[DOC]". But please keep in mind that you do not modify a code, when using the "[DOC]".

@etiennebarrie
Copy link
Contributor Author

Do not mix code change into documentation change.

Sorry!

Thanks for the details @junaruga, I hadn't realized some checks were skipped. Thank everyone and @k0kubun in particular for the quick fix.
And again sorry everyone for the trouble.

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.

4 participants