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

Allowing osg_parse to deal with missing values #9

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Nov 25, 2021

Conversation

aj2duncan
Copy link

Hi @ilapros,

I was using the osg_parse() function last week and it was invaluable in getting us some missing values from map references. The only issue we had was that some of the data had missing values and whilst these were present the parsing failed. I understand that this might be the intended use case for the osg_parse() function but I thought it might be of use to add the ability to deal with missing values. I completely understand if this is not what you would intend the function to do but wanted to give you the option.

I have also rebuilt the documentation and pkgdown pages.

Hope this helps.

Thanks,

Andrew

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

Codecov Report

Merging #9 (90d8d83) into master (c7a4e74) will increase coverage by 0.50%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master       #9      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   72.22%   72.72%   +0.50%     
==========================================
  Files          11       11              
  Lines         324      330       +6     
==========================================
+ Hits          234      240       +6     
  Misses         90       90              
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
R/osg_parse.R 96.42% <100.00%> (+0.42%) ⬆️

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 c7a4e74...90d8d83. Read the comment docs.

@ilapros ilapros merged commit 5e73282 into ilapros:master Nov 25, 2021
@ilapros
Copy link
Owner

ilapros commented Nov 25, 2021

Thanks for the pull request, I think this is a better behaviour for the function

@aj2duncan
Copy link
Author

Thanks for the pull request, I think this is a better behaviour for the function

Sorry for the delay in coming back to this @ilapros, glad that you liked this approach and very glad to help.

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