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

Fix _is_css #2162

Merged
merged 3 commits into from Jul 2, 2018

Conversation

Projects
None yet
3 participants
@megies
Member

megies commented May 28, 2018

What does this PR do?

Fixes #2160. According to the manual, the dot in the epochal time fields actually should be one column further to the right, since numeric fields should be right justified (and the epochal time fields are 18 characters wide for %17.5f format).

I've also adjusted test data a bit, for regression testing.

PR Checklist

  • Correct base branch selected? master for new features, maintenance_... for bug fixes
  • All tests still pass.
  • Any new features or fixed regressions are be covered via new tests.
  • Significant changes have been added to CHANGELOG.txt .

@megies megies added this to the 1.1.1 milestone May 28, 2018

@megies

This comment has been minimized.

Member

megies commented May 28, 2018

Ready for review and merging when CI passes.

@calum-chamberlain

This looks good and simple to me. Needs the merge resolved though.

megies added some commits May 28, 2018

io.css: fix _is_css
according to the manual, the dot should be one character further right,
since "All numeric entries are right justified" (and the epochal dates
are 17 characters wide in a 18 character wide field), so current test
data actually is not conforming to the manual when being very strict
about the schema.

see SchemaReferenceMan.pdf pages 4 and 12
@megies

This comment has been minimized.

Member

megies commented Jul 2, 2018

Rebased and force-pushed

@krischer

Looks good to me!

@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
1.1.1rc1:
1.1.1rc1.post0:

This comment has been minimized.

@krischer

krischer Jul 2, 2018

Member

Do we do this now? Might be overkill or not a bad idea. I can't tell ;-)

This comment has been minimized.

@megies

megies Jul 2, 2018

Member

Dunno.. usually we just have branch name in there for dev versions but since release candidates are semi official releases, I put some RC version number last time.. doesnt really matter much I guess

@megies megies merged commit 0600e4d into maintenance_1.1.x Jul 2, 2018

2 of 4 checks passed

continuous-integration/appveyor/pr AppVeyor build failed
Details
docker-testbot docker testbot results not available yet
ci/circleci Your tests passed on CircleCI!
Details
continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details

@megies megies deleted the fix_is_css branch Jul 2, 2018

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment