fix blatently wrong code in path_to_top_of_module_tree function#1054
Merged
boegel merged 2 commits intoeasybuilders:developfrom Oct 6, 2014
Merged
Conversation
Contributor
|
nice catch. was staring at diff for quite a bit to figure what this was fixing 😄 |
Member
Author
|
It was @olavks who reported this issue on IRC. I was in denial for some time, until I took a good look at the code at it hit me... I think the implementation was correct at some point, but refactoring introduced the bug. And the unit tests failed to catch it, even though some specific ones were added to test this functionality... |
boegel
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 6, 2014
…ule_tree fix blatently wrong code in path_to_top_of_module_tree function
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
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
I'll need to look into why the unit tests missed this, especially since specific tests for checking on the correctness of this function were added in #1047