Add a skip_zeros keyarg to analyze_malloc_fils. #73
Conversation
This file contains 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
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #73 +/- ##
=========================================
Coverage 100.00% 100.00%
=========================================
Files 4 4
Lines 240 271 +31
=========================================
+ Hits 240 271 +31 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
|
It should be ready to be merged! If #72 is rebased over main after that, it should pass the tests. Note that the tests are likely to be broken again with changes in the parser in the future. We could let a note about it somewhere in the README. |
fingolfin
approved these changes
May 8, 2024
|
Thanks again, both of you @IanButterworth @fingolfin Would one of you mind tagging a new version? |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Default behavior unchanged.
This would solve JuliaConstraints/PerfChecker.jl#38 and provide a similar option for those in need.
A test entry has been added (and passed).
Note that one of the tests (not introduced by this PR) fails on my local machine with Julia 1.10)
Please tell me if such a PR cannot be accepted. And do not hesitate to tag a new version otherwise!
EDIT: I am solving the error for Julia 1.x, x > 9, step by step. Who got the idea to make the Base parser evolve 🤣
EDIT2: done. This ugly fix tests the error message from process_file against the correct msg in 1.x when x > 9, for both windows and Unix …