-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.7k
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
Use exact comparison for bool in approx() #9354
Conversation
Hi @jvansanten, Was taking a look at the list of PRs and this one seems to have gone unnoticed, sorry about that. Overall all changes look good to me, I left a comment about the changelog only. Would you like to finish it up? If you don't have the time please let us know so we can do it. Thanks, and sorry for the delay again! |
Co-authored-by: Bruno Oliveira <nicoddemus@gmail.com>
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.
For approx of bool, doesn't it semantically make sense to check for truthy values when requested explicitly, but also ensure is checks for implicit matches in lists mappings
hey, I just got into this problems these days and found this PR. What is it missing to get this over the line please? |
Seems this fell through the cracks, thanks for the ping. I will rebase. @RonnyPfannschmidt anything else you would like changed here before we merge it? |
Will squash/merge in the next few days. Thanks @jvansanten for the PR and sorry that we missed this one. Also thanks @marcelotrevisani for the ping! |
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.
its good as is atm - the more tricky details are for when we implement matchers
Backport to 8.3.x: 💚 backport PR created✅ Backport PR branch: Backported as #13013 🤖 @patchback |
Fixes #9353.