Codecov Report

Merging #226 (504fd2b) into main (f9c1ac2) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is 75.00%.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #226   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   88.01%   88.01%           
=======================================
  Files          58       58           
  Lines        4181     4181           
=======================================
  Hits         3680     3680           
  Misses        501      501           

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

It's worrisome that not a single test failed 😐

It's worrisome that not a single test failed 😐

Yes, I added a test that should capture this change (hopefully)

I'm not sure about data_restoretype(), though, how to add a test that detects if as.numeric() will work or not.

This would be the new behaviour with as.numeric():

library(datawizard)
data <- data.frame(
  Sepal.Length = c("1", "3", "a"),
  Species = c("setosa", "versicolor", "setosa"),
  New = c("1", "3", "4")
)

fixed <- data_restoretype(data, reference = iris)
#> Warning in data_restoretype(data, reference = iris): NAs introduced by coercion
fixed
#>   Sepal.Length    Species New
#> 1            1     setosa   1
#> 2            3 versicolor   3
#> 3           NA     setosa   4

and this the old behaviour, when we keep coerce_to_numeric() as internal:

library(datawizard)
data <- data.frame(
  Sepal.Length = c("1", "3", "a"),
  Species = c("setosa", "versicolor", "setosa"),
  New = c("1", "3", "4")
)

fixed <- data_restoretype(data, reference = iris)
fixed
#>   Sepal.Length    Species New
#> 1            1     setosa   1
#> 2            3 versicolor   3
#> 3            a     setosa   4

@DominiqueMakowski what would you say is the expected behaviour?

(we should add the example of the expected behaviour as test)

@DominiqueMakowski what would you say is the expected behaviour?

bump 😬

bump

I want to make a new release soon, since I want the JOSS paper to be based on the more stable API of 0.6.0 instead of the current 0.5.0 release API.

Just so you know in case you want this PR to be part of the next release.

@DominiqueMakowski what would you say is the expected behaviour?

bump 😬

Damn it. Merge conflict again.

@DominiqueMakowski

@DominiqueMakowski what would you say is the expected behaviour?

bump 😬