Skip to content
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

set validation mode in JinjavaConfig #267

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jan 7, 2019
Merged

Conversation

boulter
Copy link
Contributor

@boulter boulter commented Jan 7, 2019

Instead of making validation mode mutable on the interpreter (dubious), set it in JinjavaConfig when building the interpreter.

Improves upon #264

@boulter boulter merged commit 78dfd59 into master Jan 7, 2019
@boulter boulter deleted the immutable-validation-mode branch January 7, 2019 20:28
@codecov-io
Copy link

codecov-io commented Jan 7, 2019

Codecov Report

Merging #267 into master will increase coverage by 0.01%.
The diff coverage is 100%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##             master     #267      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     72.22%   72.23%   +0.01%     
  Complexity     1469     1469              
============================================
  Files           231      231              
  Lines          4562     4564       +2     
  Branches        734      734              
============================================
+ Hits           3295     3297       +2     
  Misses         1009     1009              
  Partials        258      258
Impacted Files Coverage Δ Complexity Δ
...c/main/java/com/hubspot/jinjava/JinjavaConfig.java 84% <100%> (+1.14%) 18 <4> (+1) ⬆️
.../hubspot/jinjava/interpret/JinjavaInterpreter.java 78.31% <100%> (-0.39%) 50 <1> (-1)

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 628e7be...882a7bc. Read the comment docs.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants