export ids_with_token() and with_id()#394
export ids_with_token() and with_id()#394jimhester merged 2 commits intor-lib:masterfrom stufield:issue-297
Conversation
stufield
commented
Aug 13, 2019
- rm ids_with_token and with_id from 'utils.R'
- add new files 'ids_with_token.R' and 'with_id.R'
- roxygen updated NAMESPACE for new exports
- new docs; combined into 'ids_with_tokens.Rd'
- add *.R files to Collate entry of DESCRIPTION
- add 'Encoding' field to DESCRIPTION to avoid Roxygen warning
- Update NEWS.md
- Closes Writing Own Linters ... ids_with_token() Not Exported #297
- rm 'ids_with_token' and 'with_id' from utils.R - add new files 'ids_with_token.R' and 'with_id.R' - roxygen updated NAMESPACE for new exports - new docs; combined into 'ids_with_tokens.Rd' - add *.R files to Collate entry of DESCRIPTION - add 'Encoding' field to DESCRIPTION to avoid Roxygen warning - Update NEWS.md - Closes #297
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #394 +/- ##
=========================================
+ Coverage 81.74% 82.2% +0.45%
=========================================
Files 44 43 -1
Lines 1972 1871 -101
=========================================
- Hits 1612 1538 -74
+ Misses 360 333 -27
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
|
Hey @jimhester, pretty sure I'm allowed to merge this PR myself, but unsure of proper "etiquette". I see you've merged 'master' into this PR to pick up any trailing commits, so I imagine the sooner the better. If I should merge, which style merge? Default? Squashing? I know some have pretty strong opinions about that sort of thing re: the commit history. |
|
You could merge it, generally we squash PRs unless there are only a few well separated commits. |