Skip to content

add check for trunc.cols #4766

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Merged
mattdowle merged 9 commits into from
Apr 15, 2021
Merged

add check for trunc.cols #4766

mattdowle merged 9 commits into from
Apr 15, 2021

Conversation

@TysonStanley
Copy link
Member

@TysonStanley TysonStanley commented Oct 18, 2020

Simple update to print.data.table() to add a check for trunc.cols to be logical. In response to @jangorecki on #4074.

@TysonStanley TysonStanley mentioned this pull request Oct 18, 2020
Merged
@TysonStanley
Copy link
Member Author

TysonStanley commented Oct 18, 2020

It doesn't look like any of the errors had anything to do with the print method, but rather with some other functions (specifically fcase().

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 19, 2020 •
edited
Loading

Codecov Report

Merging #4766 (8f366a9) into master (1eadb95) will increase coverage by 0.00%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #4766   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   99.42%   99.42%           
=======================================
  Files          73       73           
  Lines       14437    14439    +2     
=======================================
+ Hits        14354    14356    +2     
  Misses         83       83
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
R/print.data.table.R 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 1eadb95...8f366a9. Read the comment docs.

jangorecki
jangorecki reviewed Oct 19, 2020
View reviewed changes
@TysonStanley
Copy link
Member Author

TysonStanley commented Oct 20, 2020

Regarding the test coverage, do we want to add checks for this? It is called in so many functions that I'm not sure if you want me to add to those but I can.

@MichaelChirico
Copy link
Member

MichaelChirico commented Oct 20, 2020

a simple test of getting an error for the cases described is warranted. generally if there's an error that wasn't caught by our sweet already that we're fixing, we should add a new test for that error

@TysonStanley
Copy link
Member Author

TysonStanley commented Oct 20, 2020

Added three small checks.

jangorecki
jangorecki reviewed Oct 20, 2020
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@jangorecki jangorecki left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

tests look good, just arg validation can be more strict

@mattdowle mattdowle added this to the 1.14.1 milestone Apr 15, 2021
@mattdowle mattdowle merged commit 7991630 into master Apr 15, 2021
@mattdowle mattdowle deleted the print-check-trunc.cols branch April 15, 2021 22:36
@jangorecki jangorecki modified the milestones: 1.14.9, 1.15.0 Oct 29, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@ColeMiller1 ColeMiller1 ColeMiller1 left review comments

@jangorecki jangorecki jangorecki approved these changes

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

1.15.0

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants

@TysonStanley @MichaelChirico @jangorecki @ColeMiller1 @mattdowle