0 of 0 changed or added relevant lines in 0 files are covered.
I'm having a hard time reading this message. I understand it's because all of the fields are 0s, but that doesn't mean that the message should be hard to read.
The message effectively suffers from division by zero.
The following message would yield as much information to a reader but cause less confusion:
0 changed or added relevant lines in 0 files are covered.
Even that is a bit much. The changed or added relevant lines part is still hard to parse when paired with even the single 0.
It might be possible to simply write:
0 relevant lines in 0 files are covered.
or
0 changed lines in 0 files are covered.
and, beyond that... I'm not sure if 0 files adds value. If there are 0 changed lines, they could come from an infinite number of files and it would still mean the same thing. Thus, I wonder if the message could be simplified to:
0 changed lines are covered.
Note: this is separate from #1743 which asks to fix the case of bad data when processing a PR that crosses forks.
https://github.com/thephantomthief/babelfish_extensions/pull/19#issuecomment-1878193976
I'm having a hard time reading this message. I understand it's because all of the fields are 0s, but that doesn't mean that the message should be hard to read.
The message effectively suffers from division by zero.
The following message would yield as much information to a reader but cause less confusion:
Even that is a bit much. The
changed or added relevant linespart is still hard to parse when paired with even the single0.It might be possible to simply write:
or
and, beyond that... I'm not sure if
0 filesadds value. If there are 0 changed lines, they could come from an infinite number of files and it would still mean the same thing. Thus, I wonder if the message could be simplified to:Note: this is separate from #1743 which asks to fix the case of bad data when processing a PR that crosses forks.