3
\$\begingroup\$

This question had been put on hold with the reason:

"Questions must involve real code that you own or maintain. Pseudocode, hypothetical code, or stub code should be replaced by a concrete implementation. Questions seeking an explanation of someone else's code are also off-topic."

where the only "problem" had been that the OP added one method to the class which isn't in the real code.

The OP stated in the comments of a now-deleted answer:

"PadUsername does not belong to this service": And in reality it doesn't. I just integrated the method for sake of readibility.

The OP should have stated this in his question but it is IMO ok like it is. I think that closing the question only had been triggered by a comment to the question but not because it is example/stub code.

I understood the reasons of the linked meta answer, but none of them apply to this question.

What do you think about this?

\$\endgroup\$
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ I agree, and I voted to reopen. TBH, I have no idea why I voted to close this. \$\endgroup\$ – 23fc9a62-56de-47fb-97b4-737890 Jan 30 '17 at 6:51
3
\$\begingroup\$

That close reason should be used for way worse questions, not be triggered by one ambiguously interpreted sentence.

  • There's no blatant violation of the site's rules going on
  • The question is well written
  • The user is relatively new to the site

So it shouldn't be closed, is of the proper quality we so like at Code Review and the user should be approached with some patience instead of hostility.

Voted to re-open.

In fairness though, I understand how this could've gone wrong. When going to the review queues and encountering a lot of bad questions, some of us (myself included) tend to be easily triggered into voting to close. An unfortunate side-effect of the combination of trying to keep this site clean and the recent influx of lousy questions.

\$\endgroup\$
-3
\$\begingroup\$

Yes, it should be. This question has been rigthfully closed.

What is the point of putting an effort in a review and suggest refactorings only to hear: You know what? I don't really need it because this is not my real code and in reality I do it completely different anyway.

With questions like this only general comments about naming conventions can be made. Deeper refactoring suggestions are a pure waste of time.


where the only "problem" had been that the OP added one method to the class which isn't in the real code.

This is not the only problem. It's not just added to the class but has implications in several other places where it's used like in the GetContentKeyDecryptionKeyAsync method.


New or not, preparating code like in this question is not acceptable because it triggers reviews that turn out to be written in vain.

Next time I drive too fast I'll tell the police I'm new in town so it's ok to do that.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ This answer doesn't really say why the question should be closed, just; "it should be", and "[PadUsername] is not the only problem. [PadUsername has implications elsewhere]". With a fresh set of eyes, it looks like you closed it in spite, as you didn't like OP criticizing your review. Rather than actual reasons. \$\endgroup\$ – Peilonrayz Jan 30 '17 at 9:56
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Peilonrayz I need to disappoint you because I don't mind comments. What makes me unhappy is the fact that after putting an effort in writing a review you learn that it was pointless because what you've written doesn't really apply because in fact the code is completely different. \$\endgroup\$ – t3chb0t Jan 30 '17 at 9:59

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .