Improve support for Sets in included_in? and excluded_from? predicates
#483
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
eriklovmo
force-pushed
the
support-sets-for-inclusion-and-exclusion-predicates
branch
from
cb13784 to
ecef265
Compare
|
Thanks, I merged this in 15d26d4 |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This pull request enhances support for using Set with the
included_in?andexcluded_from?predicates:"must be one of: 1, 3, 5"are produced instead of"must be one of: #<Set: {1, 3, 5}>". This makes the error clearer, especially when exposed to end users.#include?.Using sets is arguably more natural and efficient for membership checks, so explicitly supporting it makes sense.