Make method reference to Markup.Escape more obvious #1574
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
best-practices refers and links to the `Markup.Escape` method but labeled it `EscapeMarkup`. I got quite confused trying to find EscapeMarkup. Using the typical *class dot method* pattern seems preferable. It also matches what you write in code.
|
I see some |
|
I edited it directly in GitHub UI. Is the addition of the end-of-file newline an issue? |
This was referenced Jul 22, 2025
This was referenced Jul 30, 2025
This was referenced Aug 11, 2025
This was referenced Sep 30, 2025
This was referenced Oct 8, 2025
This was referenced Oct 16, 2025
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
best-practices refers and links to the
Markup.Escapemethod but labeled itEscapeMarkup.I got quite confused trying to find EscapeMarkup. Using the typical class dot method pattern seems preferable. It also matches what you write in code.
Despite the caps NOT I hope it's okay to create this PR as-is, for this trivial obvious change instead of first creating a Discussion and then a ticket and the the PR.
Checklist
[ ] I have commented on the issue above and discussed the intended changes[ ] A maintainer has signed off on the changes and the issue was assigned to me[ ] All newly added code is adequately covered by tests[ ] The documentation was modified to reflect the changes OR no documentation changes are required.