RuleBuilder: Optimize Has("Item", 0)#6228
Open
Ishigh1 wants to merge 2 commits into
Open
Conversation
github-actions
Bot
added
affects: core
Jouramie
approved these changes
May 26, 2026
Jouramie
left a comment
Jouramie
left a comment
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Seems like a good thing to check.
Jouramie
added
the
is: enhancement
silasary
approved these changes
May 27, 2026
drtchops
added
waiting-on: core-review
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
What is this fixing or adding?
I was writing my rules and stumbled into a case where it made sense to call has("item", 0) (in a generic function), and it felt wrong to just leave the rule there. I checked the case <= 0 in my code but I felt like I may as well PR the change.
The cost in resolve is minimal, and the time save when it's applied is significant, so I figured it had its place here
How was this tested?
Added a new unit test, which passes