Skip to content

Conversation

@troelskn
Copy link

Makes for a prettier output. I made the feature be opt-in to not break any existing code, but most users would probably benefit from enabling it. I also changed the constructor signature to use named parameters, but retained BC.

@troelskn troelskn requested a review from lukelex November 27, 2017 12:01
@martinvium
Copy link
Collaborator

Was just discussing this project with @jesperronn and my last chance introduced a regression, which i meant to revert. Basically we should undo the ignore tags part, which was never used anywhere.

We can either do that now, and rebase your PR, or do it after, if you prefer @troelskn ?

@troelskn
Copy link
Author

Well. Naturally, I would prefer to have mine merged now, since it's already ready to do so. I'm not sure what exactly Ignore_tags was supposed to do in any case?

@troelskn troelskn requested a review from jesperronn November 28, 2017 08:31
expect(diff).to eq("<p><del class=\"diffmod\">a</del><ins class=\"diffmod\">ab</ins></p><p><ins class=\"diffins\">c</ins></b>")
end

it "should reduce consecutive matches" do

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Please also make the same test example with reduce_consecutive: false

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants