Improve code coverage of auxiliary types #43
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #43 +/- ##
=========================================
+ Coverage 54.2% 55.4% +1.19%
=========================================
Files 29 29
Lines 1402 1397 -5
=========================================
+ Hits 760 774 +14
+ Misses 642 623 -19
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm a bit worried about new uniqueKeysWithValues Dictionary initialiser which I think changes behaviour of overlapping keys in keyed containers. Could you please clarify if this is a desired behaviour and add test coverage for the behaviour you'd like to settle with? Thanks.
| elements = Dictionary(elementsByKey) { existingElements, newElements in | ||
| existingElements + newElements | ||
| } | ||
| elements = Dictionary(uniqueKeysWithValues: elementsByKey) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
from what I see this new code has a different meaning: values with matching keys will be overwritten with new values, while in the old version these values are merged. Is this something we'd definitely like to do?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The keys are retrieved from another KeyedBox via box.elements.map { key, box in … }.
No additional keys are being introduced. As such the keys remain unique. :)
No description provided.