-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5
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
Add a skip_zeros keyarg to analyze_malloc_fils. #73
Conversation
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #73 +/- ##
=========================================
Coverage 100.00% 100.00%
=========================================
Files 4 4
Lines 240 271 +31
=========================================
+ Hits 240 271 +31 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
It should be ready to be merged! If #72 is rebased over main after that, it should pass the tests. Note that the tests are likely to be broken again with changes in the parser in the future. We could let a note about it somewhere in the README. |
Thanks again, both of you @IanButterworth @fingolfin Would one of you mind tagging a new version? |
Default behavior unchanged.
This would solve JuliaConstraints/PerfChecker.jl#38 and provide a similar option for those in need.
A test entry has been added (and passed).
Note that one of the tests (not introduced by this PR) fails on my local machine with Julia 1.10)
Please tell me if such a PR cannot be accepted. And do not hesitate to tag a new version otherwise!
EDIT: I am solving the error for Julia 1.x, x > 9, step by step. Who got the idea to make the Base parser evolve 🤣
EDIT2: done. This ugly fix tests the error message from process_file against the correct msg in 1.x when x > 9, for both windows and Unix …