-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 38
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
Is there a rule similar to procedure_calL_003 for sequential procedure calls? #1074
Comments
Morning @JHertz5 , The rule I pushed an update to the Thanks, --Jeremy |
Hi @jeremiah-c-leary. That was fast, thanks very much! I've tested your branch with the test case that I described in #1073, and it is working perfectly! |
With this change, perhaps the references to "concurrent procedure calls" in the documentation for this rule should be removed, to avoid implying that sequential procedure calls are still excluded. I would be happy to raise a separate issue and make those changes myself. |
Afternoon @JHertz5 , I think it would be best to update the documentation as part of this issue. I have pushed some updates, could you check and see if I missed anything? Thanks, --Jeremy |
Hi @jeremiah-c-leary. That makes sense 👍 It looks good to me, thanks very much! |
Morning @JHertz5 , Awesome, I will get this merged to master. --Jeremy |
What is your question?
I would like to enforce the structure of procedure calls within processes, similar to how procedure_calL_003 behaves for concurrent procedures. I haven't been able to find such a rule, does this exist already?
Desired behaviour:
to
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: