Codecov Report

Merging #1020 (80c697a) into main (990a031) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #1020   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   91.08%   91.08%           
=======================================
  Files          46       46           
  Lines        2691     2691           
=======================================
  Hits         2451     2451           
  Misses        240      240           

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

This is how benchmark results would change (along with a 95% confidence interval in relative change) if edc6ea9 is merged into main:

•   :ballot_box_with_check:cache_applying: 24.7ms -> 24.4ms [-3.26%, +0.31%]
•   :ballot_box_with_check:cache_recording: 598ms -> 602ms [-0.08%, +1.22%]
•   :ballot_box_with_check:without_cache: 1.51s -> 1.51s [-0.96%, +0.21%]

Further explanation regarding interpretation and methodology can be found in the documentation.

I am not sure we need this. We already have pre-commit that can run {lintr}... Should we activate that hook? It would respect the .lintr file.

I agree. I wasn't actually planning to merge this; this is why I marked it as a draft PR. Just wanted to check currently present lints, and take it from there. Will close it afterwards.

Also, good news is that the touchstone update is working. As expected, benchmarking is not run for this PR :)

@IndrajeetPatil Do you want to re-scope this PR into adding lintr support via pre-commit and a .lintr file?

Why not just the lint GHA? What's the benefit of including it in the precommit action?

We would include it in pre-commit and then it would run on commit locally and avoid:

• push by GitHub Action and waiting.
• git history convolution.
• consistency with local interactive {lintr} run that depend on .lintr.