Add operable:count command #1398
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
![sourcelevel-bot[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/597?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
| @@ -0,0 +1,72 @@ | |||
| defmodule Cog.Commands.Count do | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Modules should have a @moduledoc tag.
nmohoric
force-pushed
the
nmohoric/count_command
branch
from
daaba2a to
fc216a0
Compare
|
Ebert has finished reviewing this Pull Request and has found:
You can see more details about this review at https://ebertapp.io/github/operable/cog/pulls/1398. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
First attempt at a count command.
Mostly just took what was already in mix/max and changed it slightly.
Not sure if I'm totally on board with the current state.
If you pass in something like:
seed '[{}]' | countIt will return 0, due to how Cog passes in the
cog_envparam (otherwise, just runningcountwould result in a 1).At the moment there are no error cases.
Thoughts/suggestions appreciated.
This would potentially handle #772