Merged
Conversation
Member
Author
|
Also FWIW I think we can make a small change to allow |
Member
|
I would say no to breaking changes 1.12.4 |
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #3802 +/- ##
=========================================
+ Coverage 99.4% 99.4% +<.01%
=========================================
Files 72 72
Lines 13655 13673 +18
=========================================
+ Hits 13574 13592 +18
Misses 81 81
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
added 6 commits
August 31, 2019 02:37
This was referenced Sep 2, 2019
This was referenced Nov 16, 2019
Merged
This was referenced Mar 2, 2020
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Closes #2478
Closes #609
The meat is in the
do_j_namesfunction internal to[.data.tableso it inherits the right parent & can editjvnameswith<<-. Also realized this would clean up the fix done in #3604 so did that. The rest of the diff (in 0b2e058) comes from using ourvapply_1{i,b,c}wrappers more consistentlyI imagine this one will have some revdep breaking (e.g. we broke two of our own tests)... maybe save for the next release then?