feat: add the `tab_footnote()` method #763

rich-iannone · 2025-08-12T03:43:14Z

This PR adds the tab_footnote() method which allows you to add footnotes for different locations in the table. The method integrates footnote mark placement into the rendering pipeline for table headings, column labels, body cells, etc., and extends the internal data structures and options to support footnote config.

Here's an example of how this works in practice:

import polars as pl
from great_tables import GT, loc, md, html
from great_tables.data import towny

tbl_data = (
    pl.from_pandas(towny)
    .filter(pl.col('csd_type') == 'city')
    .select(['name', 'density_2021', 'population_2021', 'density_2016', 'population_2016'])
    .top_k(8, by='population_2021')
    .sort('population_2021', descending=True)
    .with_columns([
        ((pl.col('population_2021') - pl.col('population_2016')) / pl.col('population_2016') * 100).round(1).alias('pop_change'),
        ((pl.col('density_2021') - pl.col('density_2016')) / pl.col('density_2016') * 100).round(1).alias('density_change')
    ])
)

(
    GT(tbl_data, rowname_col='name')
    .tab_header(
        title=md('Ontario Cities: **2016 vs 2021 Census Data**'),
        subtitle='Comparison of population and density changes over 5 years.'
    )
    .tab_stubhead(label='Municipality')
    .tab_spanner(label='2016 Census', columns=['population_2016', 'density_2016'])
    .tab_spanner(label='2021 Census', columns=['population_2021', 'density_2021'])
    .tab_spanner(label='5-Year Change', columns=['pop_change', 'density_change'])
    .fmt_integer(columns=['population_2016', 'population_2021'])
    .fmt_number(columns=['density_2016', 'density_2021'], decimals=1)
    .fmt_number(columns=['pop_change', 'density_change'], decimals=1)
    .cols_label(
        population_2016='Population',
        density_2016='Density',
        population_2021='Population',
        density_2021='Density',
        pop_change='Population (%)',
        density_change='Density (%)'
    )
    .tab_footnote(
        footnote='Data taken from the census.',
        locations=loc.title()
    )
    .tab_footnote(
        footnote='Municipality names as they appear in the census.',
        locations=loc.stubhead()  # Test stubhead footnote
    )
    .tab_footnote(
        footnote='Population and density figures from the 2016 Census.',
        locations=loc.spanner_labels(ids=['2016 Census'])
    )
    .tab_footnote(
        footnote='Population and density figures from the 2021 Census.',
        locations=loc.spanner_labels(ids=['2021 Census'])
    )
    .tab_footnote(
        footnote='Percentage change calculated as ((2021 - 2016) / 2016) × 100.',
        locations=loc.spanner_labels(ids=['5-Year Change'])
    )
    .tab_footnote(
        footnote='Density measured in persons per square kilometer.',
        locations=loc.column_labels(columns=['density_2016', 'density_2021'])
    )
    .tab_footnote(
        footnote='Part of the Greater Toronto Area.',
        locations=loc.stub(rows=['Toronto', 'Brampton', 'Mississauga'])
    )
    .tab_footnote(
        footnote='Highest population growth in this dataset.',
        locations=loc.body(columns='pop_change', rows=3)
    )
    .tab_source_note(
        source_note = md("Data taken from the `towny` dataset (originally from the **gt** package).")
    )
)

And here is how it looks:

Fixes: #164

codecov · 2025-08-12T03:44:51Z

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 91.89189% with 30 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 91.89%. Comparing base (de3580d) to head (9eda034).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
great_tables/_utils_render_html.py	92.03%	20 Missing ⚠️
great_tables/_footnotes.py	65.21%	8 Missing ⚠️
great_tables/_locations.py	98.66%	1 Missing ⚠️
great_tables/_text.py	92.30%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #763      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   91.61%   91.89%   +0.27%     
==========================================
  Files          47       47              
  Lines        5773     6094     +321     
==========================================
+ Hits         5289     5600     +311     
- Misses        484      494      +10

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

machow · 2026-01-12T18:59:13Z

Can you resolve the conflicts on this?

rich-iannone · 2026-01-12T19:05:05Z

@machow Will do, thanks!

machow · 2026-01-13T18:01:06Z

Code review

Found 3 issues:

Duplicated locnum logic creates maintenance risk (Score: 90/100)

The footnote location ordering values (locnum) are defined in two places with inconsistent values:

In _locations.py: LocStubhead=2.5, LocSpannerLabels=3, LocColumnLabels=4, LocBody=5
In _utils_render_html.py: LocStubhead=3, LocSpannerLabels=4, LocColumnLabels=5, LocBody=6

While investigation shows the stored FootnoteInfo.locnum values are never actually read (both sorting paths recalculate via _get_locnum_for_footnote_location()), this duplication creates confusion and maintenance risk. Consider either removing the locnum field from FootnoteInfo or consolidating to a single source of truth.

(CLAUDE.md says "Use functools.partial - Reduce duplication for context-specific variants")

great-tables/great_tables/_locations.py

Lines 1206 to 1214 in 9eda034

    
           if isinstance(loc, LocTitle): 
        
               locnum = 1 
        
           elif isinstance(loc, LocSubTitle): 
        
               locnum = 2 
        
           elif isinstance(loc, LocStubhead) or isinstance(loc, LocStubheadLabel): 
        
               locnum = 2.5 
        
           else: 
        
               locnum = 6  # Default for footer-area locations

great-tables/great_tables/_utils_render_html.py

Lines 28 to 53 in 9eda034

    
           def _get_locnum_for_footnote_location(locname: loc.Loc | None) -> int | float: 
        
               """Get the visual hierarchy order for footnote location ordering.""" 
        
               if locname is None: 
        
                   return 999 
        
               # Visual hierarchy mapping for footnote location ordering 
        
               if isinstance(locname, loc.LocTitle): 
        
                   return 1 
        
               elif isinstance(locname, loc.LocSubTitle): 
        
                   return 2 
        
               elif isinstance(locname, loc.LocStubhead): 
        
                   return 3 
        
               elif isinstance(locname, loc.LocSpannerLabels): 
        
                   return 4 
        
               elif isinstance(locname, loc.LocColumnLabels): 
        
                   return 5 
        
               elif isinstance(locname, (loc.LocBody, loc.LocStub)): 
        
                   return 6  # Same as data since stub and data cells are on the same row level 
        
               elif isinstance(locname, loc.LocRowGroups): 
        
                   return 5 
        
               elif isinstance(locname, loc.LocSummary): 
        
                   return 5.5 
        
               else: 
        
                   return 999  # Default to 999 for unknown locations

Missing location types in _get_locnum_for_footnote_location() (Score: 75/100)

Several location types are handled in _locations.py when setting footnotes, but are missing from the sorting function in _utils_render_html.py. These will default to locnum=999, causing footnotes to appear at the end instead of their proper position:

LocStubheadLabel - assigned 2.5 in _locations.py line 1210, missing from sorting function
LocColumnHeader - registered at line 1179, missing from sorting function
LocGrandSummary - assigned 5 in _locations.py line 1357, missing from sorting function
LocGrandSummaryStub - assigned 5 in _locations.py line 1322, missing from sorting function

Additionally, line 49 checks for LocSummary which is commented out (lines 646-651), while LocGrandSummary which is active is not handled.

great-tables/great_tables/_utils_render_html.py

Lines 28 to 53 in 9eda034

    
           def _get_locnum_for_footnote_location(locname: loc.Loc | None) -> int | float: 
        
               """Get the visual hierarchy order for footnote location ordering.""" 
        
               if locname is None: 
        
                   return 999 
        
               # Visual hierarchy mapping for footnote location ordering 
        
               if isinstance(locname, loc.LocTitle): 
        
                   return 1 
        
               elif isinstance(locname, loc.LocSubTitle): 
        
                   return 2 
        
               elif isinstance(locname, loc.LocStubhead): 
        
                   return 3 
        
               elif isinstance(locname, loc.LocSpannerLabels): 
        
                   return 4 
        
               elif isinstance(locname, loc.LocColumnLabels): 
        
                   return 5 
        
               elif isinstance(locname, (loc.LocBody, loc.LocStub)): 
        
                   return 6  # Same as data since stub and data cells are on the same row level 
        
               elif isinstance(locname, loc.LocRowGroups): 
        
                   return 5 
        
               elif isinstance(locname, loc.LocSummary): 
        
                   return 5.5 
        
               else: 
        
                   return 999  # Default to 999 for unknown locations

great-tables/great_tables/_locations.py

Lines 1304 to 1322 in 9eda034

    
           @set_style.register(LocGrandSummaryStub) 
        
           def _( 
        
               loc: (LocStub | LocGrandSummaryStub), data: GTData, style: list[Union[CellStyle, FootnoteEntry]] 
        
           ) -> GTData: 
        
               styles, new_footnotes = footnotes_split_style_list(style) 
        
               # validate ---- 
        
               for entry in styles: 
        
                   entry._raise_if_requires_data(loc) 
        
               # TODO resolve 
        
               cells = resolve(loc, data) 
        
               new_styles = [StyleInfo(locname=loc, rownum=rownum, styles=styles) for rownum in cells] 
        
               # Handle footnotes 
        
               updated_footnotes = [] 
        
               for row_pos in cells: 
        
                   for footnote_info in new_footnotes: 
        
                       updated_footnote = replace(footnote_info, locname=loc, rownum=row_pos, locnum=5)

great-tables/great_tables/_locations.py

Lines 1331 to 1357 in 9eda034

    
           @set_style.register(LocBody) 
        
           @set_style.register(LocGrandSummary) 
        
           def _( 
        
               loc: (LocBody | LocGrandSummary), data: GTData, style: list[Union[CellStyle, FootnoteEntry]] 
        
           ) -> GTData: 
        
               positions: list[CellPos] = resolve(loc, data) 
        
               styles, new_footnotes = footnotes_split_style_list(style) 
        
               # evaluate any column expressions in styles 
        
               style_ready = [entry._evaluate_expressions(data._tbl_data) for entry in styles] 
        
               all_info: list[StyleInfo] = [] 
        
               updated_footnotes: list[FootnoteInfo] = [] 
        
               for col_pos in positions: 
        
                   # Handle styles 
        
                   row_styles = [entry._from_row(data._tbl_data, col_pos.row) for entry in style_ready] 
        
                   crnt_info = StyleInfo( 
        
                       locname=loc, colname=col_pos.colname, rownum=col_pos.row, styles=row_styles 
        
                   ) 
        
                   all_info.append(crnt_info) 
        
                   # Handle footnotes for this position 
        
                   for footnote_info in new_footnotes: 
        
                       updated_footnote = replace( 
        
                           footnote_info, locname=loc, colname=col_pos.colname, rownum=col_pos.row, locnum=5

FootnoteInfo.locnum field appears to be dead code (Score: 50/100)

The locnum field is set in FootnoteInfo objects throughout _locations.py, but both places that sort footnotes (_process_footnotes_for_display at line 1032 and _get_footnote_mark_string at line 1175) ignore the stored value and recalculate it by calling _get_locnum_for_footnote_location(fn_info.locname).

This makes the stored locnum field effectively dead code. Consider either using the stored value for sorting, or removing the field entirely.

great-tables/great_tables/_gt_data.py

Lines 889 to 895 in 9eda034

    
           @dataclass(frozen=True) 
        
           class FootnoteInfo: 
        
               locname: Loc | None = None 
        
               grpname: str | None = None 
        
               colname: str | None = None 
        
               locnum: int | float | None = None 
        
               rownum: int | None = None

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

_{- If this code review was useful, please react with 👍. Otherwise, react with 👎.}

machow

Do you mind making the adjustments to locnum mentioned in the comment?

Notes

From digging a bit w/ claude code, here's a bulleted footnote mark path.

from great_tables import GT, loc
from great_tables._utils_render_html import (
    _get_footnote_mark_string,
    _process_footnotes_for_display,
)
import pandas as pd

# Create a simple table
df = pd.DataFrame({"A": [1, 2], "B": [3, 4]})

# Apply the SAME footnote text to TWO different locations
gt = (
    GT(df)
    .tab_footnote(
        footnote="This is a shared note",
        locations=loc.body(columns="A", rows=[0])
    )
    .tab_footnote(
        footnote="This is a shared note",  # Same text!
        locations=loc.body(columns="B", rows=[1])
    )
)

# Build the data to resolve footnotes
built = gt._build_data("html")

# Show that both FootnoteInfo objects exist
print(f"Number of footnotes in _footnotes: {len(built._footnotes)}")
for i, fn in enumerate(built._footnotes):
    print(f"  [{i}] text={fn.footnotes[0]!r}, col={fn.colname}, row={fn.rownum}")

# Show that they get the SAME mark (deduplication by text)
print("\nMark assignments:")
for fn in built._footnotes:
    mark = _get_footnote_mark_string(built, fn)
    print(f"  text={fn.footnotes[0]!r} -> mark={mark!r}")

# Show the processed footnotes for footer (deduplicated)
footer_footnotes = _process_footnotes_for_display(built, built._footnotes)
print(f"\nFootnotes in footer (deduplicated): {len(footer_footnotes)}")
for fn in footer_footnotes:
    print(f"  mark={fn['mark']!r}, text={fn['text']!r}")

Footnote deduplication by text (same mark for identical text):

tab_footnote() creates a FootnoteInfo object for each call, stored in GT._footnotes
When rendering, _get_footnote_mark_string() (_utils_render_html.py:1155) determines marks:
a. Collects all footnotes with their positions (locnum, rownum, colnum)
b. Sorts by visual order (top-to-bottom, left-to-right)
c. Builds unique_footnotes list, deduplicating by text content (lines 1200-1204)
d. Looks up mark index via unique_footnotes.index(footnote_text) (line 1210)
For footer rendering, _process_footnotes_for_display() also deduplicates by text (line 1059: if footnote_text not in footnote_data)
Result: Multiple tab_footnote() calls with identical text → same mark in all locations, single entry in footer

machow · 2026-01-13T18:08:15Z

great_tables/_locations.py

+    updated_footnotes = []
+    for spanner_id in new_loc.ids:
+        for footnote_info in new_footnotes:
+            updated_footnote = replace(footnote_info, locname=loc, grpname=spanner_id, locnum=3)


From pairing, let's change blocks like this to not pass in locnum (which was hard-coded based off of this func dispatching on LocSpannerLabels). Let's do the following:

Remove locnum attribute from the FootnoteEntry class def

just use FootnoteEntry.locname.locnum (e.g. LocSpannerLabels.locnum)

Later may be useful to rename locname to loc?

From the automated review I think locnum might be unused anyways?!

I think all the footnote updating logic across set_style functions is essentially the same (especially once manual locnum setting is removed)

machow

Do you mind making the adjustments to locnum mentioned in the comment?

Notes

From digging a bit w/ claude code, here's a bulleted footnote mark path.

from great_tables import GT, loc
from great_tables._utils_render_html import (
    _get_footnote_mark_string,
    _process_footnotes_for_display,
)
import pandas as pd

# Create a simple table
df = pd.DataFrame({"A": [1, 2], "B": [3, 4]})

# Apply the SAME footnote text to TWO different locations
gt = (
    GT(df)
    .tab_footnote(
        footnote="This is a shared note",
        locations=loc.body(columns="A", rows=[0])
    )
    .tab_footnote(
        footnote="This is a shared note",  # Same text!
        locations=loc.body(columns="B", rows=[1])
    )
)

# Build the data to resolve footnotes
built = gt._build_data("html")

# Show that both FootnoteInfo objects exist
print(f"Number of footnotes in _footnotes: {len(built._footnotes)}")
for i, fn in enumerate(built._footnotes):
    print(f"  [{i}] text={fn.footnotes[0]!r}, col={fn.colname}, row={fn.rownum}")

# Show that they get the SAME mark (deduplication by text)
print("\nMark assignments:")
for fn in built._footnotes:
    mark = _get_footnote_mark_string(built, fn)
    print(f"  text={fn.footnotes[0]!r} -> mark={mark!r}")

# Show the processed footnotes for footer (deduplicated)
footer_footnotes = _process_footnotes_for_display(built, built._footnotes)
print(f"\nFootnotes in footer (deduplicated): {len(footer_footnotes)}")
for fn in footer_footnotes:
    print(f"  mark={fn['mark']!r}, text={fn['text']!r}")

Footnote deduplication by text (same mark for identical text):

tab_footnote() creates a FootnoteInfo object for each call, stored in GT._footnotes
When rendering, _get_footnote_mark_string() (_utils_render_html.py:1155) determines marks:
a. Collects all footnotes with their positions (locnum, rownum, colnum)
b. Sorts by visual order (top-to-bottom, left-to-right)
c. Builds unique_footnotes list, deduplicating by text content (lines 1200-1204)
d. Looks up mark index via unique_footnotes.index(footnote_text) (line 1210)
For footer rendering, _process_footnotes_for_display() also deduplicates by text (line 1059: if footnote_text not in footnote_data)
Result: Multiple tab_footnote() calls with identical text → same mark in all locations, single entry in footer

machow

Do you mind making the adjustments to locnum mentioned in the comment?

remove locnum from footnote class

Notes

From digging a bit w/ claude code, here's a bulleted footnote mark path.

from great_tables import GT, loc
from great_tables._utils_render_html import (
    _get_footnote_mark_string,
    _process_footnotes_for_display,
)
import pandas as pd

# Create a simple table
df = pd.DataFrame({"A": [1, 2], "B": [3, 4]})

# Apply the SAME footnote text to TWO different locations
gt = (
    GT(df)
    .tab_footnote(
        footnote="This is a shared note",
        locations=loc.body(columns="A", rows=[0])
    )
    .tab_footnote(
        footnote="This is a shared note",  # Same text!
        locations=loc.body(columns="B", rows=[1])
    )
)

# Build the data to resolve footnotes
built = gt._build_data("html")

# Show that both FootnoteInfo objects exist
print(f"Number of footnotes in _footnotes: {len(built._footnotes)}")
for i, fn in enumerate(built._footnotes):
    print(f"  [{i}] text={fn.footnotes[0]!r}, col={fn.colname}, row={fn.rownum}")

# Show that they get the SAME mark (deduplication by text)
print("\nMark assignments:")
for fn in built._footnotes:
    mark = _get_footnote_mark_string(built, fn)
    print(f"  text={fn.footnotes[0]!r} -> mark={mark!r}")

# Show the processed footnotes for footer (deduplicated)
footer_footnotes = _process_footnotes_for_display(built, built._footnotes)
print(f"\nFootnotes in footer (deduplicated): {len(footer_footnotes)}")
for fn in footer_footnotes:
    print(f"  mark={fn['mark']!r}, text={fn['text']!r}")

Footnote deduplication by text (same mark for identical text):

tab_footnote() creates a FootnoteInfo object for each call, stored in GT._footnotes
When rendering, _get_footnote_mark_string() (_utils_render_html.py:1155) determines marks:
a. Collects all footnotes with their positions (locnum, rownum, colnum)
b. Sorts by visual order (top-to-bottom, left-to-right)
c. Builds unique_footnotes list, deduplicating by text content (lines 1200-1204)
d. Looks up mark index via unique_footnotes.index(footnote_text) (line 1210)
For footer rendering, _process_footnotes_for_display() also deduplicates by text (line 1059: if footnote_text not in footnote_data)
Result: Multiple tab_footnote() calls with identical text → same mark in all locations, single entry in footer

rich-iannone added 14 commits August 11, 2025 16:37

Modify FootnoteInfo class

0ac0203

Add the tab_footnote() method

b8037ed

Implement set_footnote for various location types

75d1d6e

Remove unused tab_footnote() function and imports

44c86ae

Add footnote mark rendering to HTML table components

6610a8d

Improve footnote numbering to align with display order

14e0d35

Enable the footnotes_marks option in Options class

a07f78f

Enable the footnotes_marks parameter in tab_options()

75557b4

Add support for custom footnote mark symbols

7673067

Add footnote marks to col labels in HTML rendering

cf770e7

Add several tests

b23cfc6

Hide footnotes for hidden columns in HTML rendering

298e3f1

Add several tests

d679a16

Update test_footnotes.py

fea2271

Remove period from footnote marks in footer HTML

8eba278

github-actions bot temporarily deployed to pr-763 August 12, 2025 03:54 Destroyed

github-actions bot temporarily deployed to pr-763 August 12, 2025 03:58 Destroyed

Add tab_footnote() to the API reference docs

f0ac15d

github-actions bot temporarily deployed to pr-763 August 12, 2025 13:41 Destroyed

rich-iannone added 2 commits August 12, 2025 15:46

Improve footnote handling and ordering in rendered tbl

aca0cb1

Refactor footnote mark HTML generation

71daaef

github-actions bot temporarily deployed to pr-763 August 12, 2025 19:58 Destroyed

github-actions bot temporarily deployed to pr-763 August 12, 2025 20:00 Destroyed

rich-iannone added 2 commits August 12, 2025 16:36

Align stub and data cell footnote ordering

76727f8

Add snapshot test for footnotes in stub and body

80f2ab3

github-actions bot temporarily deployed to pr-763 August 12, 2025 21:06 Destroyed

Support unit notation in HTML/Markdown footnotes

7d37e50

github-actions bot temporarily deployed to pr-763 August 12, 2025 22:10 Destroyed

Add unified HTML footer for source notes and footnotes

1f28a4a

github-actions bot temporarily deployed to pr-763 September 9, 2025 15:11 Destroyed

Refactor footnote handling to use FootnoteEntry

310c9bf

github-actions bot temporarily deployed to pr-763 September 9, 2025 15:46 Destroyed

rich-iannone added 2 commits September 9, 2025 12:43

Remove unneeded text processing for footnotes

7a50091

Refactor footnote mark HTML creation

fec1d13

github-actions bot temporarily deployed to pr-763 September 9, 2025 16:55 Destroyed

Fix footnote mark type handling

4a7797a

github-actions bot temporarily deployed to pr-763 September 9, 2025 17:05 Destroyed

github-actions bot temporarily deployed to pr-763 September 9, 2025 17:08 Destroyed

Update _locations.py

6a39b35

github-actions bot temporarily deployed to pr-763 September 9, 2025 17:23 Destroyed

rich-iannone added 3 commits September 22, 2025 15:26

Throw error if writing a LaTeX tbl with footnotes

73a89a4

Update as_latex() docstring with footnotes limitation

385002f

Add test to check for as_latex() raising w/ footnote

d88211b

github-actions bot temporarily deployed to pr-763 September 22, 2025 19:43 Destroyed

rich-iannone marked this pull request as ready for review September 23, 2025 18:42

rich-iannone requested a review from machow October 6, 2025 17:58

rich-iannone assigned machow Oct 6, 2025

rich-iannone added 2 commits January 12, 2026 19:38

Merge main into feat-tab-footnote

81ce91f

Normalize whitespace in test_export.ambr snapshots

04b2bc7

github-actions bot temporarily deployed to pr-763 January 13, 2026 00:51 Destroyed

Update test_export snapshots after merge

9eda034

github-actions bot temporarily deployed to pr-763 January 13, 2026 00:55 Destroyed

github-actions bot deployed to pr-763 January 13, 2026 01:05 View deployment

machow requested changes Jan 13, 2026

View reviewed changes

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Uh oh!

feat: add the `tab_footnote()` method #763

feat: add the `tab_footnote()` method #763

Uh oh!

rich-iannone commented Aug 12, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

codecov bot commented Aug 12, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

machow commented Jan 12, 2026

Uh oh!

rich-iannone commented Jan 12, 2026

Uh oh!

machow commented Jan 13, 2026

Uh oh!

machow left a comment

Uh oh!

machow Jan 13, 2026

Uh oh!

machow Jan 13, 2026

Uh oh!

machow Jan 13, 2026

Uh oh!

machow left a comment

Uh oh!

machow left a comment •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

feat: add the tab_footnote() method #763

Are you sure you want to change the base?

feat: add the tab_footnote() method #763

Uh oh!

Conversation

rich-iannone commented Aug 12, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

codecov bot commented Aug 12, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

machow commented Jan 12, 2026

Uh oh!

rich-iannone commented Jan 12, 2026

Uh oh!

machow commented Jan 13, 2026

Code review

Uh oh!

machow left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Notes

Uh oh!

machow Jan 13, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

machow Jan 13, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

machow Jan 13, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

machow left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Notes

Uh oh!

machow left a comment • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Notes

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

feat: add the `tab_footnote()` method #763

feat: add the `tab_footnote()` method #763

rich-iannone commented Aug 12, 2025 •

edited

Loading

codecov bot commented Aug 12, 2025 •

edited

Loading

machow left a comment •

edited

Loading