deno_std
deno_std copied to clipboard
feat(bytes): `@std/[email protected]`
Reviews, please thoroughly review the source code and the documentation of this package and approve once:
- You foresee no breaking changes.
- Documentation and implementations are satisfactory, make sense, and don't raise concerns.
This is our first time stabilizing a package, so please point out any stones we left unturned in the process.
Closes #4629
Codecov Report
All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:
Project coverage is 91.36%. Comparing base (
3155f00
) to head (eb02236
). Report is 4 commits behind head on main.
Additional details and impacted files
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #4651 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 91.36% 91.36%
=======================================
Files 477 477
Lines 37334 37334
Branches 5325 5325
=======================================
Hits 34109 34109
Misses 3164 3164
Partials 61 61
:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.
One thing I noticed is that the 3rd params of copy
, includesNeedle
, indexOfNeedle
, and lastIndexOfNeedle
don't exactly follow the style guide rule (Exported functions: max 2 args, put the rest into an options object.
).
They all use optional primitive type (offset?: number
) as the 3rd param consistently. I personally think this is intentionally in this way, and we don't need to change them (instead we probably should update the style guide)
What do you think?
Yeah, that's a great idea. I think options objects suite functions/methods with broader functionality and the potential to expand their functionality in the future. Non-object options suite functions/methods with narrower functionality and are unlikely to expand their functionality in the future. Perhaps this distinction should be noted.
Yes I agree. I don't think we should make them objects. Let's update the style guide