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

allow "nothing" returns for evalscript #110

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jul 12, 2024
Merged

allow "nothing" returns for evalscript #110

merged 2 commits into from
Jul 12, 2024

Conversation

aviks
Copy link
Member

@aviks aviks commented Jul 6, 2024

Without this, a method error is thrown when evalscript has an empty return

Copy link

codecov bot commented Jul 6, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 66.66667% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 82.60%. Comparing base (13d925a) to head (9948c17).

Files Patch % Lines
src/client.jl 66.66% 1 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #110      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   82.76%   82.60%   -0.16%     
==========================================
  Files           9        9              
  Lines         412      414       +2     
==========================================
+ Hits          341      342       +1     
- Misses         71       72       +1     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

Copy link
Member

@tanmaykm tanmaykm left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Something like evalscript(conn, "return {10,20}", 0, [1,2]) still fails. Not sure whether we need to convert the response to string at all.

@tanmaykm
Copy link
Member

tanmaykm commented Jul 9, 2024

Was discussing this with @aviks. I will add a commit here, removing the conversion step. Will also add some tests.

@jkaye2012
Copy link
Collaborator

Similar to the other pending change, this would be a breaking change that requires a major version bump. That isn't necessarily a problem, but if we're going to be making breaking changes, we should bundle them up together and make them all at once.

@tanmaykm
Copy link
Member

Yes, I think we can plan a release only after we get both those changes in.
And since we will be doing a major version bump, #109 can be considered ready to review/merge too.

@tanmaykm
Copy link
Member

I guess we can merge this now? Will do in a bit.

@tanmaykm tanmaykm mentioned this pull request Jul 12, 2024
@tanmaykm tanmaykm merged commit 645c8f6 into master Jul 12, 2024
3 checks passed
tanmaykm added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 12, 2024
Incrementing the major version, preparing for release.
Ref: #110 (comment)
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