Closed prometh07 closed 5 years ago
which would probably be a spec to parse an example of such an MT940 file?
@Uepsilon did you merge it now without specs?!
I did and added a spec afterwards.
On Fri, 25 Jan 2019, 23:07 Michael Bumann, notifications@github.com wrote:
@Uepsilon https://github.com/Uepsilon did you merge it now without specs?!
— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/railslove/cmxl/pull/26#issuecomment-457747831, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAbobeV5EbD9DfkrCaSE96qw1qaS5xRtks5vG4AtgaJpZM4aDeCU .
ah, missed that. great! :tada:
i wasn't sure if i could have appended my specs to the PR of @prometh07 as it was coming from his fork. is that possible or what would have been the way to go here?
yep, pushing in the branch and thus updating the PR would be best I guess.
but i could not have pushed in that branch as it came from a fork i do not have write access to
could have mirrored the branch and then updated the PR
I was going to add some specs but you guys were faster. ;)
⚡️ 🏎 🏃 💨
:)
@Uepsilon typically (by default) it is enabled that maintainers have write access to the branch of the fork to update the PR.
So you could have pushed to prometh07:nonswift_fields
and this PR would have been updated.
This is probably also a best practice as everything related to this PR is then documented here.
ah. this is amazing to know. i was not aware of that.. thanks @bumi, i'll check it next time
@Uepsilon what do you think? for me this looks like a safe change. maybe we can add some specs for that parser?