-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 71
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
Expose internals used with other style guides #1043
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #1043 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 91.06% 91.05% -0.02%
==========================================
Files 46 46
Lines 2687 2682 -5
==========================================
- Hits 2447 2442 -5
Misses 240 240
Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here. |
This is how benchmark results would change (along with a 95% confidence interval in relative change) if 89433fa is merged into main:
Further explanation regarding interpretation and methodology can be found in the documentation. |
Hi @IndrajeetPatil just following-up on this, is there any way I can help progress? Will be great to be able to have |
#' pd <- compute_parse_data_nested(code) | ||
#' is_curly_expr(pd) | ||
#' is_curly_expr(pd$child$`17`$child$`14`) | ||
#' |
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.
The blank lines are deliberate.
Without them, all examples are squished together like a centipede, and it's hard to tell where one ends and the other starts.
#' is_function_declaration(pd$child$`12`$child$`11`) | ||
#' | ||
#' @export | ||
is_function_declaration <- function(pd) { |
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.
I think this is a better name than is_function_dec()
.
#' is_conditional_expr(pd$child$`24`) | ||
#' | ||
#' @export | ||
is_conditional_expr <- function(pd) { |
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.
I think this is a better name than is_cond_expr()
.
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.
But why do we need to change all the *_expr()
functions? Their current names are expressive as they are.
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.
no sorry I read your comment wrongly (which is why I deleted it). I thought you wanted *_expression()
everywhere, but that is (obviously) not the case.
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.
I see.
Okay, then this should be ready for your review. I don't have any additional changes in mind.
Hi @Robinlovelace, I am done on my end. Now I await code review. Once that's done, I think this should be good to go and might even be part of the next release (cf. #1044). |
This is how benchmark results would change (along with a 95% confidence interval in relative change) if 11b3264 is merged into main:
Further explanation regarding interpretation and methodology can be found in the documentation. |
That is a great update, thanks. 🤞 for the next release! |
This is how benchmark results would change (along with a 95% confidence interval in relative change) if 11b3264 is merged into main:
Further explanation regarding interpretation and methodology can be found in the documentation. |
Thanks for the work on this PR. @IndrajeetPatil I saw the review request. Please do not re-request a review from me. I don't forget about them, but I don't have time to look into it now but I will so in due time. |
this should be more robust against changes in the R parser with the goal to avoid CRAN submission due to failing examples
@IndrajeetPatil can you have a look at my last commit (can't request a review from you for some reason)? After this one is approved by you, I will prepare the release as discussed in #1044. |
The one who made PR can't review it themselves. That's why you can't assign me to review my own PR.
Your changes look good to me. Thanks. |
This is how benchmark results would change (along with a 95% confidence interval in relative change) if 290a73a is merged into main:
Further explanation regarding interpretation and methodology can be found in the documentation. |
Re-implementation of abandoned #1037, which had complex merge conflicts.
Closes #974.
Progress tracker
compute_parse_data_nested()
helperis_*()
helpersUpdate NEWS({fledge}
is supposed to take care of this)