⚡️ ♻️ Abbreviation replacer refactor - approach II

[nipunsadvilkar]

Keeping master code (logic from pragmatic segmenter) as it is. Just doing splitlines and a line at a time for search_for_abbreviations_in_string and concatenate approach

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Merging #71 into master will increase coverage by 0.11%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master      #71      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   98.30%   98.41%   +0.11%     
==========================================
  Files          37       37              
  Lines        1063     1074      +11     
==========================================
+ Hits         1045     1057      +12     
+ Misses         18       17       -1     

Flag	Coverage Δ
#unittests	98.41% <100.00%> (+0.11%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
pysbd/lang/common/common.py	100.00% <ø> (ø)
pysbd/abbreviation_replacer.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
pysbd/about.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
pysbd/lang/deutsch.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
pysbd/processor.py	95.83% <100.00%> (ø)
pysbd/segmenter.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
pysbd/utils.py	75.86% <100.00%> (+2.52%)	⬆️

---

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 e6c596f...6b84eaa. Read the comment docs.

[DeNeutoy]

From the spreadsheet, it looks like this approach is much better!

Does it still pass the golden rules? If so, seems like this is the right way.

[nipunsadvilkar]

@DeNeutoy Yes, it passes all the tests. Have configured CI builds that way to run test on each commit.