Closed luizgrp closed 5 years ago
@yccheok could you please review it? if you are happy with these changes we will release a new version
Merging #164 into develop will increase coverage by
0.33%
. The diff coverage is100%
.
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #164 +/- ##
===========================================
+ Coverage 88.05% 88.39% +0.33%
===========================================
Files 4 4
Lines 536 543 +7
Branches 78 78
===========================================
+ Hits 472 480 +8
+ Misses 45 44 -1
Partials 19 19
Impacted Files | Coverage Δ | |
---|---|---|
...ectionedrecyclerviewadapter/SectionParameters.java | 85.18% <ø> (-0.78%) |
:arrow_down: |
...yclerviewadapter/SectionedRecyclerViewAdapter.java | 90.64% <100%> (+0.53%) |
:arrow_up: |
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 5511bd2...58416f2. Read the comment docs.
Thanks for asking. I will review them ASAP.
FYI, currently I don't need this feature as I had changed my requirement. However, not sure this feature is applicable to others?
Just pondering, is will there be any potential performance impact, if we were changing the underlying data structure to Apache?
Thanks.
On Fri, May 24, 2019, 6:35 AM Gustavo Pagani notifications@github.com wrote:
@yccheok https://github.com/yccheok could you please review it? if you are happy with these changes we will release a new version
— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/luizgrp/SectionedRecyclerViewAdapter/pull/164?email_source=notifications&email_token=AACLINH6UL2TBJX66XQ6763PW4LZ5A5CNFSM4HPIYHF2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGODWDVPJI#issuecomment-495409061, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AACLINBRXKC2PRUMSAQQUPLPW4LZ5ANCNFSM4HPIYHFQ .
Hi @yccheok, thanks for reviewing it!
1) Not sure which one is the best, I guess we would have to search for a benchmark comparing the solutions out there. I guess we could compromise with this one and see how it goes and change if necessary?
2) The previous commit has 98257 bytes and this commit has 98843 bytes, so it's adding 586 bytes.
Add features requested in #152 and #154