Hot patch to fix #158 #159
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
geneorama
approved these changes
Jan 24, 2019
|
I turned off some of the status checks in the settings so that we could do the merge. (@nicklucius) I think we should turn them back on, but I think we need to get this uploaded to CRAN first. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Per #158, a unit test began to fail due to a change in format of column names in a sample dataset used in testing. This fix is simply to change the column names in the test script to match the names in the incoming dataset.
I've opened the pull request directly against the master branch, instead of the dev branch. Currently, the dev branch contains early work for v1.8.0, so I don't want to conflate the two. Since this is a limited hot patch, I've branched from master and am resubmitting to that same branch.
I've modeled this pull request on #142, which dealt with a nearly identical situation.