refactor!: use rlang::arg_match() in igraph.match.arg()#1165
refactor!: use rlang::arg_match() in igraph.match.arg()#1165aviator-app[bot] merged 4 commits intomainfrom
rlang::arg_match() in igraph.match.arg()#1165Conversation
Current Aviator status
This PR was merged using Aviator.
See the real-time status of this PR on the
Aviator webapp.
Use the Aviator Chrome Extension
to see the status of your PR within GitHub.
|
rlang::arg_match() in igraph.match.arg()rlang::arg_match() in igraph.match.arg()
|
Should we run revdeps with this? |
|
Starting checks now. |
|
The revdeps checks looked good but I had forgotten to rebase this branch, I am sorry. 😞 |
krlmlr
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
revdepchecks are good, thanks!
|
This pull request failed to merge: some CI status(es) failed. Once the issues are resolved, remove the Failed CI(s): Check windows-latest (release) |
|
This pull request failed to merge: some CI status(es) failed. Once the issues are resolved, remove the Failed CI(s): Check windows-latest (release) |
4722de5 to
383f85d
Compare
Fix #1059
Breaking change
rlang::arg_match()does not allow partial matching.Argument names
The
several.okandchoicesarguments are not used hence my respectively dropping/renaming them.Wondering about case sensitivity
I see that tests fail if I try making this case sensitive, because of lines such as
rigraph/R/community.R
Lines 1336 to 1344 in 3626862
The usage of
tolower()also means the error message is not aligned with the documentation. Should I work on aligning the usage of values in code with the usage of values in documentation? For instance using "CPM" not "cpm" in theswitch()call. However maybe there are people who use "cpm" in their function calls, which would currently work, so that might mean a breaking change.