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

Fix parsing error when entry from dict returns None #168

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

memegauste
Copy link

Description

Describe:

  • Content of the pull request

Fixes error when the entries is None.

  • Feature added / Problem fixed
TypeError: 'NoneType' object is not iterable

Checklist

  • I have read the contribution guide
  • Code lint checked via inv lint
  • changes file included (see docs)
  • Usage documentation added in case of new features
  • Tests added

Copy link

codecov bot commented Jan 2, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 96.57%. Comparing base (accdf1c) to head (b322e27).
Report is 17 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master     #168   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   96.57%   96.57%           
=======================================
  Files           8        8           
  Lines         933      935    +2     
  Branches       69       69           
=======================================
+ Hits          901      903    +2     
  Misses         19       19           
  Partials       13       13           
Flag Coverage Δ
unittests 96.57% <100.00%> (+<0.01%) ⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@protoroto
Copy link
Member

@PSzczepanski1996 Hi! Thanks for this: I'll finally be able to write some tests for this case, would you mind to rewrite this with a simply if entries: before the for loop? I'm not very fond of another variable declaration when checking entries could be simplier

@protoroto protoroto self-assigned this Jan 13, 2025
@protoroto protoroto mentioned this pull request Jan 13, 2025
5 tasks
@protoroto
Copy link
Member

@PSzczepanski1996 I'll close this because it's superseeded by #192 . I've added you as contributor in 1.3.1 release :)

@protoroto protoroto closed this Jan 13, 2025
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