Codecov Report

Merging #81 into master will increase coverage by 0.7%.
The diff coverage is 67.96%.

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##           master      #81     +/-   ##
=========================================
+ Coverage   68.65%   69.36%   +0.7%     
=========================================
  Files          59       60      +1     
  Lines       10525    10778    +253     
=========================================
+ Hits         7226     7476    +250     
+ Misses       2790     2775     -15     
- Partials      509      527     +18

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update eb115a9...5f7a289. Read the comment docs.

@corona10 Ok, I will add some test cases.
There is a PR at golang that implements Block Sort, which will improve the stable sort, once it's merged. Timsort isn't wanted in Go because it uses O(n) space currently.

@Tim-St Thanks for the information!

@ncw @sbinet Can you take a look at this PR?

I will add one more thing.

a = [1,3,2]
assert list.sort(a) is None
assert a == [1, 2, 3]

should work. Currently this syntax doesn't work for list.append etc too.

@ncw Thanks! I'd like to change it to get a higher score, but I don't understand how "codecov" measures the results, and there are no hints on the page which parts should be changed :\

@ncw Thanks! I'd like to change it to get a higher score, but I don't understand how "codecov" measures the results, and there are no hints on the page which parts should be changed :\

:-)

The output is a bit cryptic

The easiest way to improve the coverage is to use the go coverage tools locally to see the bits which haven't been covered in the code you've added. Cover those and the coveralls score will increase!

Hm, when I run this cover tool, most of the code in list.go is marked red, not only my code. I don't know how to improve this, maybe someone can show me how to get this right.

This looks like excellent work :-)
If we could get the coverage of the patch up to above the threshold that would be perfect!
I didn't see anything which I thought needed changing :-

@Tim-St cc @ncw
If there no issue with the current code without code coverage.
We can go to merge it.

@Tim-St
Thanks for your contribution!