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
Problems with the new Diff::LCS::Change#to_ary implementation #48
Comments
Here is a build that shows this: https://travis-ci.org/halostatue/diff-lcs/builds/484918724 |
As I see it, this library internally uses flatten() without specifying an exact level on a changeset and even tells in the documentation you could do that, so adding to_ary breaks itself and existing code. Sorry for the trouble! |
No problem. I’d like to figure out how to get the change you’ve made in, because I think it makes a lot of sense. |
- This required some level of code remediation in the main library, but all tests now pass: - Patchsets are now internally flattened one level explicitly, rather than using Array#flatten. This ensures that only the outer patchset array is flattened. Fixes #48.
- This required some level of code remediation in the main library, but all tests now pass: - Patchsets are now internally flattened one level explicitly, rather than using Array#flatten. This ensures that only the outer patchset array is flattened. Fixes #48.
- This required some level of code remediation in the main library, but all tests now pass: - Patchsets are now internally flattened one level explicitly, rather than using Array#flatten. This ensures that only the outer patchset array is flattened. Fixes #48.
@knu: Unfortunately, there has been a bug in the diff-lcs test suite on Travis for a while (the test script is running
bundle exec rake travis
which is running thetest
task; something changed to where that was no longer dependent on thespec
task), so the successful tests haven’t actually meant anything. I was prepping your merged PR #47 and could not get any of the tests to pass withbundle exec rake
for various reasons.The tests are correctly running now, but now we are seeing 88/274 failures. I suspect that this means we are going to need to revert #47, but I wanted to see if you had any suggestions before I do this.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: