#13 Implemented WalletsIn.iterator()

[carlosmiranda]

#13: Implemented WalletsIn.iterator(). Replaced placeholder unit test with test of actual implementation.

[codecov-io]

Codecov Report

Merging #37 into master will decrease coverage by 0.43%.
The diff coverage is 84.61%.

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##             master      #37      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage      92.1%   91.66%   -0.44%     
- Complexity       17       22       +5     
============================================
  Files             3        3              
  Lines            38       48      +10     
  Branches          1        2       +1     
============================================
+ Hits             35       44       +9     
- Misses            3        4       +1

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ	Complexity Δ
src/main/java/io/zold/api/WalletsIn.java	88.88% <84.61%> (+1.38%)	9 <7> (+5)	⬆️

---

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 0179105...133d912. Read the comment docs.

[0crat]

Job #37 is now in scope, role is REV

[0crat]

Job #37 is already in scope

[0crat]

@llorllale/z not enough funds available in the project, can't set budget of job #37, see §21; @carlosmiranda/z will get no money on completion; in order to fix that, add funds to the project and assign the job again

[llorllale]

@carlosmiranda can you use Directory and Filtered from cactoos here? Also, keep in mind that the default filename extension for wallets is .z.

[llorllale]

@carlosmiranda see above

[carlosmiranda]

@llorllale pushed new commits, please check. I added a new file to the test (6) without *.z extension to demonstrate that this can be filtered as well.

[llorllale]

@rultor merge

[rultor]

@rultor merge

@llorllale OK, I'll try to merge now. You can check the progress of the merge here

[rultor]

@rultor merge

@llorllale Done! FYI, the full log is here (took me 12min)

[0crat]

Job #37 is not in the agenda of @carlosmiranda/z, can't retrieve data and time of add

[0crat]

Job #37 is not in the agenda of @carlosmiranda/z, can't retrieve data and time of add

[0crat]

Job #37 is not in the agenda of @carlosmiranda/z, can't inspect

[0crat]

The job #37 is now out of scope

[0crat]

Payment to ARC for a closed pull request, as in §28: +10 point(s) just awarded to @llorllale/z

[ypshenychka]

@0crat status

[ypshenychka]

@0crat status

[0crat]

@0crat status (here)

@ypshenychka This is what I know about this job in CAZUREFND, as in §32:

• The job #37 is not in scope
• The job is waiting quality review verdict by @ypshenychka/z for 3mon
• @carlosmiranda/z will receive 30 minutes after quality review
• Job footprint (restricted area)

[0crat]

@0crat status (here)

@ypshenychka This is what I know about this job in CAZUREFND, as in §32:

• The job #37 is not in scope
• The job is waiting quality review verdict by @ypshenychka/z for 3mon
• @carlosmiranda/z will receive 30 minutes after quality review
• Job footprint (restricted area)

[ypshenychka]

@llorllale According to our QA Rules:

The code reviewer found at least three problems in the code.
Comments were mostly about design problems, not cosmetic issues.

Only one issue was found during code review.
Please confirm that you'll try to find at least three major problems while future reviews.

[llorllale]

@ypshenychka I confirm.

Please note that no REV was assigned to this job though.

[ypshenychka]

@llorllale So should I mark it as bad?

[llorllale]

@ypshenychka I guess so (I have no idea)

[ypshenychka]

@0crat quality bad

[0crat]

Quality is low, no payment, see §31

[0crat]

Quality review completed: +8 point(s) just awarded to @ypshenychka/z