Windows crashdump fix and refactor #1449
Open
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
…, removing hardcoded values, and cleaning up the code for better readability and maintainability
ikelos
reviewed
Dec 20, 2024
| SIGNATURE = 0x45474150 | ||
| VALIDDUMP = 0x504D5544 | ||
|
|
||
| DUMP_TYPE_FULL = 1 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Crash info should probably make use of these constants (at the moment it hardcodes the values).
|
fix: #1438 |
|
Waiting on your review please @atcuno (once the parity release is out). |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This PR addresses #1438.
Unfortunately, previously the code was messy and difficult to follow. I refactored the
_load_segments()function by splitting it based on each dump type, adding docstrings and typing, removing hardcoded values, and cleaning up the code for improved readability and maintainability.@atcuno Could you please test it thoroughly? It should be fine since I've only rearranged the code.