-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 6
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
Fixes for 0.7 and add some basic tests #6
Conversation
Alright, tests are passing on 0.6 again, and tests also pass on 1.0 (without depwarns) with: |
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #6 +/- ##
===========================================
+ Coverage 2.59% 94.73% +92.13%
===========================================
Files 4 3 -1
Lines 77 19 -58
===========================================
+ Hits 2 18 +16
+ Misses 75 1 -74
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
@@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ function flex(elem=nothing) | |||
style(elem, "display"=>"flex") | |||
end | |||
|
|||
function container(xs...) | |||
function container(xs::AbstractVector) |
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.
This was necessary because after the Node
-> node
change, this would otherwise create a PersistentVector{Vector{Node}}
instead of a PersistentVector{Node}
.
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.
Ah, this fixes #5.
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.
Nice! Probably worth adding a container(xs...) = container([xs...])
method as well: this function is exported so we should try to preserve the multi-argument method.
test/runtests.jl
Outdated
|
||
# write your own tests here | ||
@test 1 == 1 | ||
if isdefined(WebIO, :node) # TODO: remove once a new WebIO tag is in |
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.
It just got tagged, could you update this?
All done. Should I disallow failures on 1.0 on Travis? |
Yes, if it's already passing on 1.0 we don't need to allow failures. Other than that, LGTM. Btw, you JuliaRobotics guys really are heroes, you and Robin have fixed so many things lately in the web stack! |
And one last thing: the README also needs to be updated to |
Thanks! Addressed comments. Just for clarity: to get CI to pass on 1.0 we still need the WebIO tag, but after that tag CSSUtil is good on 1.0. |
Also fixes #5.