This may be a breaking change. The current behavior is min_coverage with defaults to 0, and fixing it to 100 would "cause existing functionality to change".

@alestiago with the addition of min_coverage between 0 and 100, now I think this is definetly a breaking change. What do you think?

@alestiago with the addition of min_coverage between 0 and 100, now I think this is definetly a breaking change. What do you think?

I personally don't think this is a breaking change since specifying min_coverage smaller than 0 or greater than 100 was incorrect usage. However, perhaps a less "breaking" solution would be to clamp the values instead of throwing an error, but that might be less intuitive. Either way, I'm fine with both approaches.

@alestiago can you add the hacktoberfest tag?

@kelvinwieth I'm not sure how do you want me to do so. Unfortunately this year we didn't prepare to participate in Hacktoberfest (hopefully next year we do!).

@erickzanardo @renancaraujo @wolfenrain can I get an additional review here?