-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 187
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
New consecutive_suppression_linter #2306
Conversation
I'm wondering whether this would also fit into |
We lost some history here, but my memory is we intentionally left out |
Marking as draft until #2279 is merged |
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #2306 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 99.39% 99.39%
=======================================
Files 120 120
Lines 5412 5433 +21
=======================================
+ Hits 5379 5400 +21
Misses 33 33 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
Metadata tests and intermingled calls would be interesting to check. |
PTAL at the test in 9977822 |
I was thinking about suppressMessages()
suppressPackageStartupMessages()
suppressMessages()
suppressPackageStartupMessages()
suppressPackageStartupMessages() To see how they interact. |
Oh, gotcha. Will add. FWIW, I've never come across this in practice. I assume any author using these consecutive calls is just doing a bunch of copy-paste, rather than thinking carefully about what needs to be suppressed in each case. |
Part of #884
No hits on {lintr}