codecov[bot]
commented
9 months ago Codecov Report
All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:
Comparison is base (
8564405) 98.86% compared to head (f12590f) 98.86%.
Additional details and impacted files
```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## master #39 +/- ## ========================================= Coverage 98.86% 98.86% Complexity 189 189 ========================================= Files 9 9 Lines 528 528 ========================================= Hits 522 522 Misses 6 6 ``` | [Flag](https://app.codecov.io/gh/inpsyde/modularity/pull/39/flags?src=pr&el=flags&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=inpsyde) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [unittests](https://app.codecov.io/gh/inpsyde/modularity/pull/39/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=inpsyde) | `98.86% <ø> (ø)` | | Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. [Click here](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/carryforward-flags?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=inpsyde#carryforward-flags-in-the-pull-request-comment) to find out more.:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.
Please check if the PR fulfills these requirements
What kind of change does this PR introduce? (Bug fix, feature, docs update, ...)
Update docs so they no longer include deprecated functionality.
What is the current behavior? (You can also link to an open issue here)
Currently, two pieces of documentation include the deprecated usage of
Package::boot()with one or more module instances being passed to the method.What is the new behavior (if this is a feature change)?
The documentation shows adding modules and booting the package in separate calls to
addModule()andboot(), respectively.Does this PR introduce a breaking change? (What changes might users need to make in their application due to this PR?)
No.
Other information: