Skip to content
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

#972 - Fixed the UnitOfWork.begin() JavaDoc to reflect the implementation #976

Closed

Conversation

jccarrillo
Copy link
Contributor

Following the #972 issue, this revision fixes the javadoc.

…al implementation which is to throw an exception when an existing session is in progress.
@googlebot
Copy link

Thanks for your pull request. It looks like this may be your first contribution to a Google open source project. Before we can look at your pull request, you'll need to sign a Contributor License Agreement (CLA).

📝 Please visit https://cla.developers.google.com/ to sign.

Once you've signed, please reply here (e.g. I signed it!) and we'll verify. Thanks.


  • If you've already signed a CLA, it's possible we don't have your GitHub username or you're using a different email address. Check your existing CLA data and verify that your email is set on your git commits.
  • If you signed the CLA as a corporation, please let us know the company's name.

@jccarrillo
Copy link
Contributor Author

I signed it.

jc

Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 13:09:50 -0800
From: notifications@github.com
To: guice@noreply.github.com
Subject: Re: [guice] #972 - Fixed the UnitOfWork.begin() JavaDoc to reflect the implementation (#976)

Thanks for your pull request. It looks like this may be your first contribution to a Google open source project. Before we can look at your pull request, you'll need to sign a Contributor License Agreement (CLA).

Please visit https://cla.developers.google.com/ to sign.

Once you've signed, please reply here (e.g. I signed it!) and we'll verify. Thanks.

If you've already signed a CLA, it's possible we don't have your GitHub username or you're using a different email address. Check your existing CLA data and verify that your email is set on your git commits.
If you signed the CLA as a corporation, please let us know the company's name.


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

@googlebot
Copy link

We found a Contributor License Agreement for you (the sender of this pull request), but were unable to find agreements for the commit author(s). If you authored these, maybe you used a different email address in the git commits than was used to sign the CLA (login here to double check)? If these were authored by someone else, then they will need to sign a CLA as well, and confirm that they're okay with these being contributed to Google.

@jccarrillo
Copy link
Contributor Author

I signed it!

jc

Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 13:09:50 -0800
From: notifications@github.com
To: guice@noreply.github.com
Subject: Re: [guice] #972 - Fixed the UnitOfWork.begin() JavaDoc to reflect the implementation (#976)

Thanks for your pull request. It looks like this may be your first contribution to a Google open source project. Before we can look at your pull request, you'll need to sign a Contributor License Agreement (CLA).

Please visit https://cla.developers.google.com/ to sign.

Once you've signed, please reply here (e.g. I signed it!) and we'll verify. Thanks.

If you've already signed a CLA, it's possible we don't have your GitHub username or you're using a different email address. Check your existing CLA data and verify that your email is set on your git commits.
If you signed the CLA as a corporation, please let us know the company's name.


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

@jccarrillo
Copy link
Contributor Author

Is there anything else needed for approval?

@sameb
Copy link
Member

sameb commented Apr 20, 2023

The implementation was changed to respect the javadoc in 3e21a13.

@sameb sameb closed this Apr 20, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants