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

improved meaningfulness of error message for column_to_rownames() #399

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Mar 22, 2018

Conversation

Projects
None yet
2 participants
@alexwhan
Copy link
Contributor

alexwhan commented Mar 22, 2018

The error message from column_to_rownames() currently refers to num2 instead of the var argument value.

This PR removes num2 and adds the var argument value to the error message

@codecov

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

codecov bot commented Mar 22, 2018

Codecov Report

Merging #399 into master will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is 100%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master     #399   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   90.39%   90.39%           
=======================================
  Files          23       23           
  Lines        1083     1083           
=======================================
  Hits          979      979           
  Misses        104      104
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
R/rownames.R 100% <100%> (ø) ⬆️

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 c5d4d01...f646ad9. Read the comment docs.

@krlmlr krlmlr merged commit 5234f94 into tidyverse:master Mar 22, 2018

4 checks passed

codecov/patch 100% of diff hit (target 90.39%)
Details
codecov/project 90.39% (+0%) compared to c5d4d01
Details
continuous-integration/appveyor/pr AppVeyor build succeeded
Details
continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details
@krlmlr

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

krlmlr commented Mar 22, 2018

Thanks! (Although the original implementation seems to have passed all relevant tests :-o )

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