stdlib-js
bench: refactor to use string interpolation in `complex/float64/base/add`
type: pre_commit_static_analysis_report description: Results of running static analysis checks when committing changes. report:
- task: lint_filenames status: passed
- task: lint_editorconfig status: passed
- task: lint_markdown status: na
- task: lint_package_json status: na
- task: lint_repl_help status: na
- task: lint_javascript_src status: na
- task: lint_javascript_cli status: na
- task: lint_javascript_examples status: na
- task: lint_javascript_tests status: na
- task: lint_javascript_benchmarks status: na
- task: lint_python status: na
- task: lint_r status: na
- task: lint_c_src status: na
- task: lint_c_examples status: na
- task: lint_c_benchmarks status: na
- task: lint_c_tests_fixtures status: na
- task: lint_shell status: na
- task: lint_typescript_declarations status: passed
- task: lint_typescript_tests status: na
- task: lint_license_headers status: passed ---
Progresses #4813.
Description
What is the purpose of this pull request?
This pull request:
- Refactors JavaScript benchmark files in `@stdlib/complex/float64/base/add` to use string interpolation via `@stdlib/string/format` instead of string concatenation when specifying benchmark names.
Related Issues
Does this pull request have any related issues?
This pull request has the following related issues:
- #4813
Questions
Any questions for reviewers of this pull request?
No.
Other
Any other information relevant to this pull request? This may include screenshots, references, and/or implementation notes.
No.
Checklist
Please ensure the following tasks are completed before submitting this pull request.
- [x] Read, understood, and followed the contributing guidelines.
AI Assistance
When authoring the changes proposed in this PR, did you use any kind of AI assistance?
- [ ] Yes
- [x] No
@stdlib-js/reviewers
Coverage Report
| Package | Statements | Branches | Functions | Lines |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| complex/float64/base/add | $\color{green}266/266$ $\color{green}+100.00%$ |
$\color{green}9/9$ $\color{green}+100.00%$ |
$\color{green}4/4$ $\color{green}+100.00%$ |
$\color{green}266/266$ $\color{green}+100.00%$ |
The above coverage report was generated for the changes in this PR.
