Closed infotroph closed 7 years ago
:exclamation: No coverage uploaded for pull request base (
master@5af13de
). Click here to learn what that means. The diff coverage is100%
.
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #88 +/- ##
=========================================
Coverage ? 12.98%
=========================================
Files ? 14
Lines ? 716
Branches ? 0
=========================================
Hits ? 93
Misses ? 623
Partials ? 0
Impacted Files | Coverage Δ | |
---|---|---|
R/betydb.R | 96.66% <100%> (ø) |
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 5af13de...1a6b383. Read the comment docs.
@infotroph sure, i'll have a look
Using options makes sense to me - I'll defer to the ropensci conventions & best practices
On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 4:01 PM Scott Chamberlain notifications@github.com wrote:
@infotroph https://github.com/infotroph sure, i'll have a look
— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/ropensci/traits/pull/88#issuecomment-282417458, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAcX5w1pyR_tqgePBLIMRvt7m47v-yKrks5rf1MqgaJpZM4MLdQH .
@infotroph
in the future it'd be easier to deal with smaller PR's - this isn't huge, but does encompass things that at least to me could be done separately.
Looks okay to me for now. we'll see later if it leads to any problems, travis is passing, so that's a good sign
@sckott sorry for the huge pull -- I'm making a note to keep them smaller in the future. This can be merged now and I'll submit deprecation changes separately iff we go forward with them.
thanks @infotroph
Dealing with bits from the BETY API version update that weren't finished in #82.
options("betydb_url")
etc overlist(url, version, key, ...)
because it appears to be more in line with how auth is handled in other ropensci packages.test_that
, which turns out to be more complicated than I expected. See any lurking bugs?betydb_query
acceptsinclude_unchecked
,limit
, andoffset
(#52 )betydb_record
now provides a generic replacement, sobetydb_<table>(id)
is now ~equivalent tobetydb_record(id, table=<table>)
.betydb_<table>
callbetydb_record
to get the full possibly-nested list, then apply whatever table-specific formatting is needed to return a standardized dataframe.