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

Fix bug in zero_offset! called when materializing seqview #261

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Nov 28, 2022

Conversation

jakobnissen
Copy link
Member

When materializing a seqview, a slice of the underlying buffer is copied directly, for efficiency. Since the bytes may be placed in the buffer with a nonzero offset, the optimised zero_offset! is called. However, a bug in zero_offset! meant that it did not behave correctly when the offset was already zero.

Fix #260

When materializing a seqview, a slice of the underlying buffer is copied
directly, for efficiency. Since the bytes may be placed in the buffer with a
nonzero offset, the optimised zero_offset! is called.
However, a bug in zero_offset! meant that it did not behave correctly when the
offset was already zero.
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Nov 28, 2022

Codecov Report

Base: 88.53% // Head: 88.54% // Increases project coverage by +0.00% 🎉

Coverage data is based on head (a9970de) compared to base (db8a692).
Patch coverage: 100.00% of modified lines in pull request are covered.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master     #261   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   88.53%   88.54%           
=======================================
  Files          31       31           
  Lines        2329     2330    +1     
=======================================
+ Hits         2062     2063    +1     
  Misses        267      267           
Flag Coverage Δ
unittests 88.54% <100.00%> (+<0.01%) ⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Impacted Files Coverage Δ
src/longsequences/transformations.jl 88.54% <100.00%> (+0.12%) ⬆️

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

☔ View full report at Codecov.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

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.

Converting a LongSubSeq to LongSequence can give weird results
1 participant