Add test for older DOI format #10
Merged
Conversation
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
More info: https://www.crossref.org/blog/dois-and-matching-regular-expressions/ This test ensures roughly 300000 DOIs from Wiley match the regex
Contributor
Author
|
Hi @RichardLitt , happy new year! Just thought I'd at mention you in case you missed this PR. Let me know if you have any questions - hopefully this funny example is something you think would be beneficial to keep in the test suite. |
Member
|
Sweet contribution! I had indeed missed it. Thanks for doing this. Happy New Year! |
Contributor
Author
|
Thanks Richard! Glad it was helpful |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This CrossRef blog post about DOI regexes mentions some DOIs that are somewhat unique.
One of the special cases is for roughly 300000 DOIs from Wiley. We wanted to make sure the doi-regex package would match those - and at least for the example DOI I put, it looks like it is 👍
So no functional change here. Instead, I'm just adding a test to ensure this slightly atypical DOI still matches the regex used in this package.