Skip to content
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

Fix order of comparison for EitherT.cond #1999

Merged

Conversation

andyscott
Copy link
Contributor

@andyscott andyscott commented Oct 30, 2017

This is very minor, but the order of the comparison for the EitherT.cond test is swapped: if the test ever winds up catching a breaking change, it will output the incorrect "expected" value.

This fixes the order and also adjusts the test name to describe what's being checked.

Copy link
Contributor

@johnynek johnynek left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

👍

@codecov-io
Copy link

codecov-io commented Oct 31, 2017

Codecov Report

Merging #1999 into master will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Impacted file tree graph

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #1999   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   95.24%   95.24%           
=======================================
  Files         301      301           
  Lines        4922     4922           
  Branches      123      123           
=======================================
  Hits         4688     4688           
  Misses        234      234

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 1f0cba0...b35c6b4. Read the comment docs.

@fthomas fthomas merged commit 4687568 into typelevel:master Oct 31, 2017
@kailuowang kailuowang added this to the 1.0.0-RC1 milestone Oct 31, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants