Remove unused ConversionFailure #6113
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
github-actions
bot
added
the
Category: Core - API - Commands Package
Flame442
approved these changes
May 3, 2023
red-githubbot
bot
added
the
Changelog Entry: Pending
Jackenmen
added
Changelog Entry: Skipped
Jackenmen
added a commit
to Jackenmen/Red-DiscordBot
that referenced
this pull request
May 5, 2023
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Description of the changes
I've apparently accidentally readded it to
__all__in #6020? Weirdly enough, I didn't remove it in #5600 either... Us no longer wrappingBadArgumentinConversionFailureis already mentioned in the "Backwards incompatible changes in Red 3.5" document so there's no need to alter it?Let me know if you think that it's fine to get this into 3.5 or if we should go with a standard deprecation warning on usage and remove it in 3.6, even though it's not used by anything at this point.
Have the changes in this PR been tested?
No