- Issue created by @ericvl
- First commit to issue fork.
- 🇧🇪Belgium ericvl
Why is the patch different from the diff of the merge request?
The patch covers 2 issues while the MR covers just one.
The MR works for me for the issue that is specified in the title but maybe there is a second issue in the file that is covered by the patch too that I can't test. - 🇮🇹Italy mondrake 🇮🇹
Thanks all!
Please do not post patch files: this project only accepts MRs.
Automated tests are failing, so this issue needs work to solve the failures.
- 🇮🇳India priti197
@ericvl, there is no need of typecasting at line 69 & 70 as per patch #4. Variables $c1, $c2 are simply defined for iteration of the for() loop.
@mondrake, MR !64 is created to fix the addressed issue.
Thank you. - 🇧🇪Belgium ericvl
I tested the issue just by manually adding the two (int) casts in the file and checked of the issue still existed. And the test did well. What I don't understand is how the junit tests could fail after the patch in the MR was applied?
If this test fails now it should have been failed at release of the 4.0.0 version.
Strange...
Anyway, the two casts are the solution to this issue.