-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 8
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
fix code parser for :=
operator
#234
Conversation
Code Coverage Summary
Diff against main
Results for commit: 324093e Minimum allowed coverage is ♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results |
Unit Tests Summary 1 files 12 suites 3s ⏱️ Results for commit 40385ba. |
Unit Tests Summary 1 files 12 suites 3s ⏱️ Results for commit 324093e. ♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results. |
Unit Test Performance DifferenceAdditional test case details
Results for commit 43fc0b0 ♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results. |
Unit Test Performance DifferenceAdditional test case details
Results for commit 4c4803b ♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results. |
…ightsengineering/teal.code into fix_datatable_operators@main
@averissimo would you mind to review again. I was able to change to rlang |
Got to love the solutions which take up multiple more lines to solve the same issue xd I am just here to see this merged in, though, so you do you, guys :) |
There is a specific place in the code where we fix all issues related to the structure with which we work. |
With a designed function we can also have a documentation for what scenario it solves |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is a great and elegant fix!
I think the name of the function should be changed and have optional suggestion just to make it easier to extend in the future if necessary.
Co-authored-by: André Veríssimo <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Marcin <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM!!
1 optional comment, accept it or ignore it as you see fit
Great job here.
Co-authored-by: André Veríssimo <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Marcin <[email protected]>
Closes #233 and alternative for #233
This removed
:=
from extracted calls so that it is not treated asLEFT_ASSIGNMENT
.Current main - check row 26
Feature branch - row removed
This lead to the fact that below can be executed without errors