-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 130
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
increase tidyeval usage #178
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #178 +/- ##
=====================================
Coverage 100% 100%
=====================================
Files 20 20
Lines 601 600 -1
=====================================
- Hits 601 600 -1
|
Just taking a quick look, I think this is even better than the rebase. It looks like you used the current dev version of these functions as the base for your changes so it should be easily mergeable. I'll try to review this within the next week. I see changes like switching from deprecated |
how did I not figure this out originally?!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks great! I think I understand why they are all superior replacements. Had not seen quos_auto_name()
before and in particular appreciate the refactoring of get_dupes
.
R/tabyl.R
Outdated
combos <- tidyr::complete(tabl %>% dplyr::select(-n), !!!rlang::syms(names(tabl)[1:2])) # this is pretty ugly - using dplyr keeps col types the same making for easier join, vs. expand.grid | ||
# would be nice to just complete() tabl and skip the join, but couldn't get the eval to work | ||
tabl <- suppressMessages(dplyr::full_join(tabl, combos)) | ||
tabl <- tidyr::complete(tabl, !! var1, !! var2) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@bfgray3 I don't remember all of my struggles originally with this but my comment indicates that this was a kludge but the best I could do. I seem to have succeeded in simplifying this as I'd originally hoped... it passes the tests so should be good but do you see any risks here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Nice work! Definitely much better than the update I had made. 👍
this is a replacement for #146. sorry for the confusion in that pull request.