fix(iteration): bySetPositions index calculation #69
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Signed-off-by: Jonas Badstübner <jonas.badstuebner@hetzner-cloud.de>
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #69 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 87.90% 87.92% +0.01%
==========================================
Files 21 21
Lines 1282 1284 +2
==========================================
+ Hits 1127 1129 +2
Misses 155 155 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
JonasWanke
approved these changes
Jan 28, 2024
|
Thanks for this fix! It's published as part of v0.2.15 |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Closes: #68
dateIndexis currently implemented so that edge cases, where it should "ignore" a SETPOS, lead to incorrect calculations.I'm open for improvements, maybe I made the implementation of this check more complicated than it has to be.
It's late in Germany, so maybe I see a better way tomorrow. But this is the solution I found.
It includes the fix from #67, but not the test, so I would like them both to be merged. I will take care of rebasing if necessary.