Update get_attributes to handle attributeLists w single attribute#326
Open
ianbrunjes wants to merge 1 commit intoropensci:masterfrom
Open
Update get_attributes to handle attributeLists w single attribute#326ianbrunjes wants to merge 1 commit intoropensci:masterfrom
ianbrunjes wants to merge 1 commit intoropensci:masterfrom
Conversation
ianbrunjes
changed the title
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Under certain conditions (see reprex in #285), passing an attributeList with a single attribute into get_attributes will cause an error due to the use of lapply, which for multiple attributes (represented as a list of lists) will correctly apply the function to each attribute, but for a singular attribute (which can be just a flat list) would attempt to apply the function to each character element of the list and causes the error.
This fix attempts to prevent that error by identifying which case is being handled and applying the appropriate logic accordingly.
With that said, this fix feels a little hacky to me and if anyone has a better idea on how to handle it I very much welcome input.