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: Remove requirement refUnderCursorExists when using keyboard shortcut to follow a link #127 #130

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Sep 27, 2020

Conversation

bs
Copy link
Contributor

@bs bs commented Sep 26, 2020

Please forgive me– I feel like I must be missing something. It reads like we don't want refUnderCursorExists to be checked against when using the Open Link keyboard shortcut.

Removing this allows for the creation of notes with the shortcut and doesn't break any tests.

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented Sep 26, 2020

Codecov Report

Merging #130 into master will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Impacted file tree graph

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master     #130   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   92.39%   92.39%           
=======================================
  Files          20       20           
  Lines         868      868           
  Branches      199      199           
=======================================
  Hits          802      802           
  Misses         64       64           
  Partials        2        2           

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 1ff6a7d...fffb0e3. Read the comment docs.

@svsool
Copy link
Owner

svsool commented Sep 27, 2020

Thanks for contribution! This change looks good to me!

@bs
Copy link
Contributor Author

bs commented Sep 27, 2020

Of course! Any idea how it got in there in the first place? I felt like I must have been missing something.

@svsool
Copy link
Owner

svsool commented Sep 27, 2020

Of course! Any idea how it got in there in the first place? I felt like I must have been missing something.

This is a leftover on copy/pasting when condition from here where it makes sense, but as you figured not in the case of editor.action.openLink command.

@bs
Copy link
Contributor Author

bs commented Sep 27, 2020

Ah, rad! That's what I had guessed. Thanks for your work on this!

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