Skip to content
New issue

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

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

Already on GitHub? # to your account

allows to pass any <String, ?> map to the withValues() function, instead of using a strict Object type for the value. #377

Merged

Conversation

uklimaschewski
Copy link
Collaborator

No description provided.

…ead of using a strict Object type for the value.
@uklimaschewski uklimaschewski linked an issue Apr 8, 2023 that may be closed by this pull request
@uklimaschewski uklimaschewski merged commit df8eeeb into main Apr 8, 2023
@sonarqubecloud
Copy link

sonarqubecloud bot commented Apr 8, 2023

Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed!    Quality Gate passed

Bug A 0 Bugs
Vulnerability A 0 Vulnerabilities
Security Hotspot A 0 Security Hotspots
Code Smell A 0 Code Smells

No Coverage information No Coverage information
0.0% 0.0% Duplication

@uklimaschewski uklimaschewski deleted the 375-consider-some-wildcards-for-mapstring-object-values branch April 8, 2023 07:42
# for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? # to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Consider some wildcards for Map<String, Object> values
1 participant