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

Add filterfalse to itertools #109

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 7, 2023

Conversation

ziima
Copy link
Contributor

@ziima ziima commented Apr 27, 2023

No description provided.

unittests/test_itertools.py Fixed Show resolved Hide resolved
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Apr 27, 2023

Codecov Report

Patch coverage: 100.00% and project coverage change: +0.01 🎉

Comparison is base (b966a95) 99.07% compared to head (c8a946f) 99.08%.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #109      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   99.07%   99.08%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files          20       20              
  Lines        2047     2075      +28     
  Branches      314      321       +7     
==========================================
+ Hits         2028     2056      +28     
  Misses         11       11              
  Partials        8        8              
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
asyncstdlib/__init__.py 100.00% <ø> (ø)
asyncstdlib/itertools.py 98.67% <100.00%> (+0.04%) ⬆️
unittests/test_itertools.py 98.12% <100.00%> (+0.11%) ⬆️

... and 1 file with indirect coverage changes

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

@maxfischer2781
Copy link
Owner

Thanks for the contribution and especially for spotting that this was missing!

Copy link
Owner

@maxfischer2781 maxfischer2781 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This looks overall good to go. Please take a look at the failed "Static Checks" and adjust the code accordingly.

Feel free to disregard the codecov failure. I'll leave it up to you whether you want to address the CodeQL report, I'm fine with both variants.

  • Static Checks must succeed
  • Consider to address the CodeQL report

@ziima
Copy link
Contributor Author

ziima commented May 5, 2023

* [ ]  Static Checks must succeed
* [ ]  Consider to address the CodeQL report

Both should be fixed now.

Copy link
Owner

@maxfischer2781 maxfischer2781 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks good to go!

@maxfischer2781 maxfischer2781 merged commit ea20841 into maxfischer2781:master May 7, 2023
12 checks passed
@ziima ziima deleted the add-filterfalse branch November 15, 2023 20:46
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.

None yet

2 participants