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

add Iter::map_option #1151

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

add Iter::map_option #1151

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

Yoorkin
Copy link
Collaborator

@Yoorkin Yoorkin commented Oct 21, 2024

Iter::map_option serves the same functionality as Array::map_option.

Copy link

peter-jerry-ye-code-review bot commented Oct 21, 2024

Identified Problems in the git diff Output

  1. Potential Redundancy in map_option Function

    • The map_option function seems to be designed to filter out elements that return None when a mapping function is applied. However, there already exists a map_while function that seems to serve a similar purpose. It might be worth reviewing both functions to ensure they cater to different use cases or if one can be refactored to avoid redundancy.
  2. Documentation and Testing for map_option

    • The map_option function is documented with a brief explanation of its purpose, which is good practice. However, it might benefit from additional examples or a more detailed explanation, especially if it's intended to replace or complement existing functions like map_while.
    • The unit test for map_option covers basic functionality, but it could be expanded to include edge cases and scenarios where the function might fail or behave unexpectedly. This would strengthen the test suite and ensure robustness.
  3. Typo in Commit Message

    • In the builtin.mbti file, there's a line added for map_option which is correctly implemented in the iter.mbt file. However, the commit message or the context around the change might benefit from a review to ensure there are no typos or miscommunications that could lead to confusion.

These suggestions aim to improve code clarity, ensure functionality is tested comprehensively, and maintain consistency across similar utilities.

@Yoorkin Yoorkin requested a review from bobzhang October 21, 2024 03:57
@coveralls
Copy link
Collaborator

coveralls commented Oct 21, 2024

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 3656

Details

  • 5 of 5 (100.0%) changed or added relevant lines in 1 file are covered.
  • No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
  • Overall coverage increased (+0.02%) to 82.761%

Totals Coverage Status
Change from base Build 3652: 0.02%
Covered Lines: 4263
Relevant Lines: 5151

💛 - Coveralls

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.

2 participants