Skip to content
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

feat(#3251): i32 and i16 are introduced #3368

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Sep 12, 2024

Conversation

maxonfjvipon
Copy link
Member

@maxonfjvipon maxonfjvipon commented Sep 12, 2024

Ref: #3251


PR-Codex overview

This PR focuses on enhancing number conversion operations and adding error handling for out-of-bounds values.

Detailed summary

  • Renamed methods in number.eo for consistency
  • Improved conversion logic in EOi64$EOplus.java, EOi64$EOgt.java, EOi64$EOdiv.java, EOi64$EOtimes.java
  • Added error handling for out-of-bounds values in i64.eo and bytes.eo
  • Added new methods for converting between i16, i32, and i64 in Java files

The following files were skipped due to too many changes: eo-runtime/src/main/eo/org/eolang/i16.eo, eo-runtime/src/main/eo/org/eolang/i32.eo, eo-runtime/src/test/eo/org/eolang/i32-tests.eo, eo-runtime/src/test/eo/org/eolang/i16-tests.eo

✨ Ask PR-Codex anything about this PR by commenting with /codex {your question}

@maxonfjvipon
Copy link
Member Author

@yegor256 please check

Copy link
Member

@yegor256 yegor256 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@maxonfjvipon LGTM, thanks!

@yegor256
Copy link
Member

@rultor merge

@rultor
Copy link
Contributor

rultor commented Sep 12, 2024

@rultor merge

@yegor256 OK, I'll try to merge now. You can check the progress of the merge here

@rultor rultor merged commit ef04318 into objectionary:master Sep 12, 2024
21 checks passed
@rultor
Copy link
Contributor

rultor commented Sep 12, 2024

@rultor merge

@yegor256 Done! FYI, the full log is here (took me 48min)

@0crat
Copy link

0crat commented Sep 12, 2024

@yegor256 Hey there, great job on the review! 🎉 You've snagged 4 points for this one. Here's the breakdown: 4 points as a base, plus a sweet 8 points for reviewing a whopping 895 hits-of-code! We had to deduct 10 points because there were only 4 comments (the policy aims for at least 6), but we added 1 point to keep things positive. Remember, more comments can boost your points next time! Your current balance sits at -64. Keep up the great work, and let's aim for even more engaging reviews in the future!

@0crat
Copy link

0crat commented Sep 12, 2024

@maxonfjvipon Thank you for your contribution! Your effort is appreciated, but there are some concerns. While you've earned the base +4 points, we've had to apply deductions: -8 for exceeding 200 hits-of-code (895), -16 for surpassing 800 hits-of-code, and -4 for having only 3 comments. To ensure you receive some recognition, we've added 28 points, bringing your total to +4. Remember, smaller, focused contributions are often more beneficial. Keep up the good work, and we look forward to your future contributions. Your current balance stands at +24.

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