Skip to content

Conversation

@toriningen
Copy link
Contributor

There are few typos that mistakenly claim the annotation is called IsDigit, while it's actually IsDigits.

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented Feb 22, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 95.00%. Comparing base (59a50d1) to head (92ffb90).

❗ Your organization needs to install the Codecov GitHub app to enable full functionality.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main      #63      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   94.97%   95.00%   +0.02%     
==========================================
  Files           2        2              
  Lines         219      220       +1     
  Branches       33       33              
==========================================
+ Hits          208      209       +1     
  Misses          9        9              
  Partials        2        2              

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@Zac-HD
Copy link
Member

Zac-HD commented Feb 22, 2024

Hmm, for consistency with the method names I'd prefer to call it IsDigit, but for compatibility and to support other intuitions maybe we should just ship both aliases?

@Zac-HD Zac-HD requested a review from adriangb February 22, 2024 20:44
@adriangb
Copy link
Contributor

We should have called it IsDigit from the get-go, but we made a mistake and now the docs are wrong. Let's merge this PR and we can always make a followup PR to add another alias.

@Zac-HD Zac-HD merged commit 89e3d2e into annotated-types:main Mar 3, 2024
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.

4 participants