Skip to content

Add tests for xmagics #138

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jun 1, 2024
Merged

Conversation

tharun571
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

Copy link
Contributor

clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍"

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented May 31, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 79.31%. Comparing base (f4b9593) to head (ca7401d).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #138      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   75.08%   79.31%   +4.22%     
==========================================
  Files          17       17              
  Lines         602      609       +7     
  Branches       59       59              
==========================================
+ Hits          452      483      +31     
+ Misses        150      126      -24     

see 2 files with indirect coverage changes

see 2 files with indirect coverage changes

@tharun571 tharun571 requested a review from vgvassilev May 31, 2024 16:17
Copy link
Contributor

clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍"

Copy link
Contributor

@vgvassilev vgvassilev left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGMT!

Copy link
Contributor

clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍"

1 similar comment
Copy link
Contributor

clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍"

Copy link
Contributor

clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍"

Comment on lines 28 to 34
/**
* @class StreamRedirectRAII
* @brief A RAII class to redirect a stream to a stringstream.
*
* This class redirects the output of a given std::ostream to a std::stringstream.
* The original stream is restored when the object is destroyed.
*/
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
/**
* @class StreamRedirectRAII
* @brief A RAII class to redirect a stream to a stringstream.
*
* This class redirects the output of a given std::ostream to a std::stringstream.
* The original stream is restored when the object is destroyed.
*/
/// A RAII class to redirect a stream to a stringstream.
///
/// This class redirects the output of a given std::ostream to a std::stringstream.
/// The original stream is restored when the object is destroyed.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I've been used to this style of doxygen comments from llvm. Probably easier when building doxygen documentation one day in terms of configuration, etc. I did not find a lot of API documentation in the xeus-cpp, so maybe we should establish that style here...

}

private:
std::streambuf* old_stream_buff; ///< The original buffer of the stream.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
std::streambuf* old_stream_buff; ///< The original buffer of the stream.
/// The original buffer of the stream.
std::streambuf* old_stream_buff;

Documenting the public api is generally enough as the expectation is that the private api will vary over time more and will more likely cause the documentation to go out of sync.

Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Jun 1, 2024

clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍"

@vgvassilev vgvassilev merged commit 1fe6daf into compiler-research:main Jun 1, 2024
10 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants