Skip to content

Minor updates #185

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 3 commits into from
May 15, 2025
Merged

Minor updates #185

merged 3 commits into from
May 15, 2025

Conversation

RDxR10
Copy link
Contributor

@RDxR10 RDxR10 commented May 10, 2025

No description provided.

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented May 11, 2025

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 45.45455% with 6 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 90.30%. Comparing base (29be829) to head (cfa8e32).

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
spellchecker/spellchecker.py 50.00% 5 Missing ⚠️
spellchecker/utils.py 0.00% 1 Missing ⚠️

❌ Your patch status has failed because the patch coverage (45.45%) is below the target coverage (50.00%). You can increase the patch coverage or adjust the target coverage.

Additional details and impacted files

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #185      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   91.89%   90.30%   -1.60%     
==========================================
  Files           4        4              
  Lines         296      299       +3     
==========================================
- Hits          272      270       -2     
- Misses         24       29       +5     
Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
spellchecker/utils.py 63.33% <0.00%> (ø)
spellchecker/spellchecker.py 96.92% <50.00%> (-2.19%) ⬇️
🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@barrust
Copy link
Owner

barrust commented May 11, 2025

Thank you for the PR. Is there a situation that caused the need for the change to _update_dictionary()?

@RDxR10
Copy link
Contributor Author

RDxR10 commented May 11, 2025

Not really, but since many other functions depend on _update_dictionary(), I thought I'd give it a speed boost. Test is here: https://gist.github.com/RDxR10/9510d7a98ca61d9481110ea7d855ec52

@barrust barrust merged commit 93e4061 into barrust:master May 15, 2025
8 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