-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 32
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
Specialize apply_schema to Schema for lead/lag #152
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #152 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 84.04% 84.48% +0.44%
==========================================
Files 9 9
Lines 495 522 +27
==========================================
+ Hits 416 441 +25
- Misses 79 81 +2
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
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.
Fair.
Should we add Test.detect_ambiguities
to runtests.jl
I'm not familiar with that, what does it do that detecting the ambiguity errors themselves doesn't? |
You write
inside your |
Looks like that catches ambiguities that are internal to Base or Core too though...
…On Sep 16 2019, at 10:19 am, Lyndon White ***@***.***> wrote:
You write
@test isempty(detect_ambiguities(Base, Core, StatsModels))
inside your test/runtest.jl and it goes through and checks that no ambiguities exist.
—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub (#152?email_source=notifications&email_token=AABBF4F6N4XVHF3ZV6NYBZLQJ6IW3A5CNFSM4IWUGCFKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOD6ZJVQY#issuecomment-531798723), or mute the thread (https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AABBF4F74ZQBE4Y55J6P2LTQJ6IW3ANCNFSM4IWUGCFA).
|
Yes, but Base and Core don't have any. So ... |
alteratively, can just do
|
The issue is that there aren't any ambiguities in the code as far as it exists now...but they have a nasty habit of turning up with extensions (like these temporal terms) |
Seems like a good reason to add that test then? |
.........indeed |
BTW, when I run
on 1.3-rc2 |
Might be worth opening issues on those packages? |
The other issue I just ran into is: when I run |
adding additional methods in the extensions tests creates ambiguities :(((
Okay I marked the failing test as broken and added a "clean" one at the start. |
By analogy with how other built-in terms are handled since the Schema type was
introduced.
Fixes #146