Skip to content
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

Add apidocs to #tap and #dup #792

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Add apidocs to #tap and #dup #792

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

hachi8833
Copy link
Member

@hachi8833 hachi8833 commented Oct 15, 2019

Added the api documents to #tap and #dup.

Ref: #788 and #791

I hope my understanding is correct, especially on Hash#dup.

@hachi8833 hachi8833 requested a review from st0012 October 15, 2019 00:50
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 15, 2019

Codecov Report

Merging #792 into master will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is 100%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master     #792   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   80.31%   80.31%           
=======================================
  Files          54       54           
  Lines        7431     7431           
=======================================
  Hits         5968     5968           
  Misses       1236     1236           
  Partials      227      227
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
vm/array.go 96.17% <ø> (ø) ⬆️
vm/class.go 85.8% <ø> (ø) ⬆️
vm/hash.go 96.81% <ø> (ø) ⬆️
vm/string.go 98.27% <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 a97e245...357d650. Read the comment docs.

@st0012
Copy link
Member

st0012 commented Oct 15, 2019

@hachi8833 sorry that I should warn you about object_id doesn't actually function like Ruby. Even if you call it on the same object it returns different numbers every time.
I will try to fix this issue first. It that works out well, we can merge this PR after the fix. If that didn't work, you'll need to use different examples in your doc 😞

@st0012 st0012 added this to the version 0.1.12 milestone Oct 15, 2019
@hachi8833
Copy link
Member Author

Thank you for the explanation! I'll try it after the fix.

@hachi8833 hachi8833 closed this Oct 15, 2019
@st0012
Copy link
Member

st0012 commented Oct 28, 2019

@hachi8833 the issue of object_id has been fixed and merged, feel free to reopen this PR!

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.

2 participants