Conversation
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #36 +/- ##
=========================================
Coverage 100.00% 100.00%
=========================================
Files 8 8
Lines 394 439 +45
=========================================
+ Hits 394 439 +45 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
|
This looks great! I'll test it as soon as I get a chance and be sure to report back if I can any unexpected issues. Thanks for being open to the contribution. |
This file contains hidden or 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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
This PR adds the
table_idargument tocompare(), with a slightly different approach than #34. The functions which take a comparison argument all use the comparison'stable_id, rather than having their own argument to specify table identifiers.@elipousson Thanks for the feature request and initial implementation! Could you let me know what you think of this approach?
Edit: On second thought, the
suffixargument was a good idea. So this PR is now the same approach on the user end as yours. The only real difference with yours is I kept things as "a" and "b" for steps if they were entirely internal (locate_matches), and handled some rare edge cases like asuffixvector where both values are the same.