Skip to content

Conversation

@MichaelChirico
Copy link
Member

Closes #6725

Eh, pretty hacky, I'm still not sure we've made a good solution of the breaking changes induced by #6551.

Anyway I think the change is good: running setDT(env$x) should definitely behave the same as setDT(get('x', env)).

@MichaelChirico MichaelChirico requested a review from tdhock January 16, 2025 21:56
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jan 16, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 98.62%. Comparing base (e0abdfc) to head (3fbf5ab).
Report is 2 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #6726   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   98.62%   98.62%           
=======================================
  Files          79       79           
  Lines       14625    14630    +5     
=======================================
+ Hits        14424    14429    +5     
  Misses        201      201           

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

@tdhock
Copy link
Member

tdhock commented Jan 17, 2025

lgtm

@MichaelChirico MichaelChirico merged commit d263924 into master Jan 17, 2025
10 of 11 checks passed
@MichaelChirico MichaelChirico deleted the setDT-get branch January 17, 2025 13:03
rffontenelle pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 17, 2025
* Allow setDT(get(...)) to work as previously

* Quirks of test.data.table...

* need to eval() in the right place

* imitate the approach in other branches more closely

* maybe we just needed enclos=?

* Comment for posterity

* Actually do the test
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.

setDT() on a get()-returned object no longer works as intended

2 participants