Conversation
similar to search_dates, but gets only the first date, and more suitable to shorts strings. It uses a brute-force approach, but has more predictable performance (at least on shorter strings - we limit the length to 100), and better quality in our tests, although still not perfect. Not sure if it should be exposed in current form, but may be useful for future development.
Codecov ReportBase: 98.26% // Head: 98.21% // Decreases project coverage by
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #931 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 98.26% 98.21% -0.06%
==========================================
Files 231 232 +1
Lines 2597 2633 +36
==========================================
+ Hits 2552 2586 +34
- Misses 45 47 +2
Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here. ☔ View full report at Codecov. |
|
Tests seem to be failing with Python 3.5 because was it introduced in Python 3.6 which provides a guarantee that keyword arguments are passed in the same order they appear in the code (from left to right) PEP 468 -- Preserving the order of **kwargs in a function. A possible solution for the issue, |
|
We can close this PR after merging #945 |
This function is similar to search_dates, but gets only the first date, and more suitable to shorts strings. It uses a brute-force approach, but has more predictable performance (at least on shorter strings - we limit the length to 100), and better quality in our tests, although still not perfect.
Not sure if it should be exposed in current form, but may be useful for future development.
NOTE: this PR is not worked on currently and free to pick up.
TODO: