Closed nevrome closed 1 year ago
OK, for 1) yes, I think a warning would be good, at least if a column is requested that is present nowhere. For 2) OK, that's fine then.
Base: 64.91% // Head: 70.96% // Increases project coverage by +6.04%
:tada:
Coverage data is based on head (
34ead2a
) compared to base (c76e0e2
). Patch coverage: 68.90% of modified lines in pull request are covered.
:mega: This organization is not using Codecov’s GitHub App Integration. We recommend you install it so Codecov can continue to function properly for your repositories. Learn more
:umbrella: View full report at Codecov.
:loudspeaker: Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.
I'm either a fool or I had a stroke of genius. Difficult to judge with this one.
As suggested in #225 I replaced the unsatisfying
extractAdditionalField
with a much simpler, much more flexible solution, that relies on the hashmap in Data.CSV.JannoRow
already is an instance ofCsv.ToNamedRecord
, because that's the mechanism we use to write .janno files. I think we can abuse this fact to transformJannoRow
s to hashmaps and read their content as strings for arbitrary keys (so: .janno column names). What do you think?A big problem is, that we can not really test this with the remote server at the moment. My changes in 1.1.8.4 (#221) changed the way janno data is encoded in JSON, so server and client can not speak to each other any more.
--remote
triggers an error, when I try to read from the old server with the new client:This is a separate issue from this PR, but it affects how I can test it. See #228 for an attempt to fix that.