-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
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
Link to page block #73
Conversation
n2y/notion_mocks.py
Outdated
'strikethrough': False, | ||
'underline': False, | ||
'code': False, | ||
'color': 'default'}, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
See other comment about trailing parens.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Understood. And the mock_rich_text_array() call took care of it anyway.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@idolcemia nice work! I had a few small comments that need to be addressed, but it's very close to done!
- Simplify notion_mocks.py method mock_page - Various stylistic changes
@idolcemia we didn't really have a mechanism for tracking bugs within Notion (in the past we've used GitHub Issues with the "bug" label). I added a "Tags" property to the "Tasks" database and moved the bug you wrote up into one. See https://www.notion.so/innolitics/Uncaught-Error-Embedded-Page-ea10752d0c0345069443f07860b10282 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Nice work @idolcemia thanks for addressing all of the comments. Feel free to merge!
I'll write up another issue for you shortly.
New unit test for blocks of type link_to_page.
Such blocks can be of two types: page or database. As both types of expansions use the same procedure, a "database" version of this unit test would be redundant.
Link to the issue:
#66