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

drop check_pname in favor just just check_name #446

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Mar 13, 2025
Merged

drop check_pname in favor just just check_name #446

merged 4 commits into from
Mar 13, 2025

Conversation

dsweber2
Copy link
Contributor

Checklist

Please:

  • Make sure this PR is against "dev", not "main".
  • Request a review from one of the current epipredict main reviewers:
    dajmcdon.
  • Make sure to bump the version number in DESCRIPTION and NEWS.md.
    Always increment the patch version number (the third number), unless you are
    making a release PR from dev to main, in which case increment the minor
    version number (the second number).
  • Describe changes made in NEWS.md, making sure breaking changes
    (backwards-incompatible changes to the documented interface) are noted.
    Collect the changes under the next release number (e.g. if you are on
    0.7.2, then write your changes under the 0.8 heading).
  • Consider pinning the epiprocess version in the DESCRIPTION file if
    • You anticipate breaking changes in epiprocess soon
    • You want to co-develop features in epipredict and epiprocess

Change explanations for reviewer

Simple substitution as suggested in the PR. Results in a change when the name is redundant by throwing an error instead of substituting a random name, which is probably for the best

Magic GitHub syntax to mark associated Issue(s) as resolved when this is merged into the default branch

@dsweber2 dsweber2 requested a review from dajmcdon as a code owner March 13, 2025 16:36
@dsweber2 dsweber2 merged commit 7f08d40 into dev Mar 13, 2025
2 checks passed
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.

Refactor to avoid check_pname()
2 participants