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

exclude %<>% from one_call_pipe_linter #2331

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Nov 21, 2023
Merged

exclude %<>% from one_call_pipe_linter #2331

merged 2 commits into from
Nov 21, 2023

Conversation

MichaelChirico
Copy link
Collaborator

Closes #2330

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented Nov 21, 2023

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (209e250) 99.40% compared to head (ff74954) 99.40%.

❗ Current head ff74954 differs from pull request most recent head 80b1436. Consider uploading reports for the commit 80b1436 to get more accurate results

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #2331   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   99.40%   99.40%           
=======================================
  Files         122      122           
  Lines        5523     5523           
=======================================
  Hits         5490     5490           
  Misses         33       33           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@@ -39,6 +39,7 @@
* `nested_pipe_linter()` for discouraging pipes within pipes, e.g. `df1 %>% inner_join(df2 %>% select(a, b))` (part of #884, @MichaelChirico).
* `nrow_subset_linter()` for discouraging usage like `nrow(subset(x, conditions))` in favor of something like `with(x, sum(conditions))` which doesn't require a full subset of `x` (part of #884, @MichaelChirico).
* `pipe_return_linter()` for discouraging usage of `return()` inside a {magrittr} pipeline (part of #884, @MichaelChirico).
* `one_call_pipe_linter()` for discouraging one-step pipelines like `x |> as.character()` (#2330 and part of #884, @MichaelChirico).
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Did we miss the bullet for the first PR? 😳

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yes 🥲

@IndrajeetPatil IndrajeetPatil merged commit 05baf80 into main Nov 21, 2023
20 checks passed
@IndrajeetPatil IndrajeetPatil deleted the ocp-pipes branch November 21, 2023 22:07
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.

Should one_call_pipe_linter() apply only to %>%?
4 participants