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

ScalaDoc #9

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
May 20, 2016
Merged

ScalaDoc #9

merged 5 commits into from
May 20, 2016

Conversation

rafaparadela
Copy link

This PR includes comments in order to generate Scala API Doc.

@javipacheco Could you take a look please?

@codecov-io
Copy link

codecov-io commented May 16, 2016

Current coverage is 0.69%

Merging #9 into master will increase coverage by 0.69%

@@            master        #9   diff @@
========================================
  Files           14        14          
  Lines          143       143          
  Methods          0         0          
  Messages         0         0          
  Branches         1         1          
========================================
+ Hits             0         1     +1   
+ Misses         143       142     -1   
  Partials         0         0          
  1. File ...IdInterpreters.scala was modified. more
    • Misses -1
    • Partials 0
    • Hits +1

Powered by Codecov. Last updated by 7a37e65...58db07d

* @param scopes attached to the token
* @param note to remind you what the OAuth token is for
* @param client_id the 20 character OAuth app client key for which to create the token
* @param client_secret the 40 character OAuth app client secret for which to create the token

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Maybe we should include return type here

@return GHResponse[Authorization] comment

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ok

@javipacheco
Copy link

I think that we should use @return in all calls and the coverage doesn't work fine

coverage is n/a%

@rafaparadela
Copy link
Author

  • @return annotation: OK, makes sense
  • The coverage report locally is: 71.31% (I don't know why Codecov.io doesn't infer the right value.

http://scala.run/1TjEeTf

@rafaparadela
Copy link
Author

@javipacheco Your comments have been addressed. I'm going to increase test coverage in next PRs, is good to merge so far?

@javipacheco
Copy link

LGTM

@rafaparadela rafaparadela merged commit d58ae37 into master May 20, 2016
@rafaparadela rafaparadela deleted the rafa-scaladoc branch May 20, 2016 10:53
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.

3 participants