Stricter BlockRange constructors#472
Merged
mtfishman merged 6 commits intoJul 1, 2025
Merged
Conversation
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #472 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 93.81% 93.82%
=======================================
Files 19 19
Lines 1681 1683 +2
=======================================
+ Hits 1577 1579 +2
Misses 104 104 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
Collaborator
Author
|
Looks like downstream tests pass so luckily those packages weren't using the |
dlfivefifty
approved these changes
Jul 1, 2025
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Closes #471.
This removes constructors
BlockRange(),BlockRange(2, 2), andBlockRange(1:2, 1:2). Instead, the more explicit versionsBlockRange(()),BlockRange((2, 2)), andBlockRange((1:2, 1:2))can be used.This now makes
BlockRangeconstructors more consistent withCartesianIndicesconstructors:and removes the inconsistency pointed out in #471 when calling
BlockRange(::AbstractUnitRange)vs.BlockRange(::AbstractVector):This is technically breaking, though I would argue that it is a bug fix because of the inconsistency of the current code design (i.e. I would argue that the previous behavior of
BlockRange(::AbstractUnitRange)was incorrect, and therefore was a bug). I'm curious to see if this leads to any downstream failures.