Skip to content

Fix nullness RFC link in issue template #18369

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

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 8, 2025
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
4 changes: 2 additions & 2 deletions .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/nullness_issue.yml
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ body:
- type: markdown
attributes:
value: |
Please check at [Nullable Reference Types RFC](https://github.com/fsharp/fslang-design/blob/main/RFCs/FS-1060-nullable-reference-types.md) if this issue isn't a known limitation, such as missing flow-control analysis after branching constructs like `if` or `while`. Also check at [existing nullness issues](https://github.com/dotnet/fsharp/issues?q=is%3Aissue+label%3AArea-Nullness+) if it hasn't been reported already.
Please check at [Nullable Reference Types RFC](https://github.com/fsharp/fslang-design/blob/main/FSharp-9.0/FS-1060-nullable-reference-types.md) if this issue isn't a known limitation, such as missing flow-control analysis after branching constructs like `if` or `while`. Also check at [existing nullness issues](https://github.com/dotnet/fsharp/issues?q=is%3Aissue+label%3AArea-Nullness+) if it hasn't been reported already.
Please provide a succinct description of the issue and choose 1 or more from the following categories of impact
- type: checkboxes
id: categories
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -73,4 +73,4 @@ body:
Are there any language constructs (typically pattern matching, library constructs, Null/NonNull active patterns, explicit type annotations) allowing the same logic be expressed differently in order to mitigate the experienced nullness issue?
placeholder: Possible workaround
validations:
required: false
required: false