Skip to content

Conversation

@darikg
Copy link
Contributor

@darikg darikg commented Jun 20, 2016

Seemed like this got left behind during all the refactoring

@coveralls
Copy link

coveralls commented Jun 20, 2016

Coverage Status

Coverage increased (+0.04%) to 96.475% when pulling 66ae504 on darikg:dont-ignore-skip_cm into 0f8848f on andialbrecht:master.

# TODO: May need to implement skip_cm for upstream changes.
# TODO: May need to re-add default value to idx
def token_next(self, idx, skip_ws=True, skip_cm=False):
def token_next(self, idx, skip_ws=True, skip_cm=False, _reverse=False):
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

whats the intent of _reverse vs using token_prev?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Just noticed the refactoring right above this line on token_prev.

@vmuriart vmuriart merged commit 66ae504 into andialbrecht:master Jun 20, 2016
" from dual) t0"])


def token_next_doesnt_ignore_skip_cm():
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The prefix test_ was missing on the test name, and wasn't actually running. Just corrected it, but wanted to give you an FYI 😄

@darikg
Copy link
Contributor Author

darikg commented Aug 23, 2016

Whoops! Thanks @vmuriart

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.

3 participants