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

Documentation example of split doesn't work #40

Open
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: 1.x
from

Conversation

@JakeCB
Copy link

@JakeCB JakeCB commented May 15, 2016

I wasn't super sure I was following your test functions so I just tested the observables by transforming them to and from arrays.

Part of the problem is StringObservable.split() seems to always behave like String.split() limit 0 which trims excess empty strings at the end. There also doesn't seem to be a way to change the limit so at least the documentation needs to be updated to show this behavior.

Changing the limit in testSplit() doesn't help which is why I went with the array tests.
Limit -1 or even something like 6 should preserve the empty strings if you follow the normal String.split().
But that limit could be for something else. I didn't dive that deep in the test code.

JakeCB added 4 commits May 15, 2016
I'm wasn't super sure I was following your test functions so I just tested the observables by transforming them to and from arrays.

Part of the problem is StringObservable.split() seems to always behave like String.split() limit 0 which trims excess empty strings at the end. There also doesn't seem to be a way to change the limit so at least the documentation needs to be updated to show this behavior.

Changing the limit in testSplit() doesn't help which is why I went with the array tests.
Limit -1 or even something like 6 should preserve the empty strings if you follow the normal String.split().
But that limit could be for something else. I didn't dive that deep in the test code.
It still failed because of different lengths. But now it should behave if they were actually equal.
I think I have a fix now.
It should pass all the current tests.
@akarnokd
Copy link
Member

@akarnokd akarnokd commented Jun 30, 2016

@davidmoten
Copy link
Contributor

@davidmoten davidmoten commented Jul 13, 2016

Thanks for this and excuse the delay. I'll run some examples with this myself but it certainly does appear that their is a conflict of intent in the operator that you have probably sorted out. I'll get back to you next week as I'm on holiday. Cheers.

@JakeCB
Copy link
Author

@JakeCB JakeCB commented Oct 30, 2017

Did this ever get resolved one way or the other? I guess I should have made an issue for it.

@akarnokd
Copy link
Member

@akarnokd akarnokd commented Oct 30, 2017

#47 has a fresh implementation.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Linked issues

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.