Sorry, we missed this PR and not it has conflicts. Could you please fix them if possible? Like that we can review this PR.

I have changed the implementation to match the new one

Hello Yannick happy new year.
Great to see some commits (we missed the previous and I feel bad about it).
I launched the CI.
I saw that you remove peek so apparently it was not tested :)

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 21003044264

Warning: This coverage report may be inaccurate.

This pull request's base commit is no longer the HEAD commit of its target branch. This means it includes changes from outside the original pull request, including, potentially, unrelated coverage changes.

• For more information on this, see Tracking coverage changes with pull request builds.
• To avoid this issue with future PRs, see these Recommended CI Configurations.
• For a quick fix, rebase this PR at GitHub. Your next report should be accurate.

Details

• 142 of 148 (95.95%) changed or added relevant lines in 1 file are covered.
• No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
• Overall coverage decreased (-3.6%) to 96.429%

Totals
Change from base Build 14791745891:	-3.6%
Covered Lines:	162
Relevant Lines:	168

💛 - Coveralls

Hello Yannick happy new year. Great to see some commits (we missed the previous and I feel bad about it). I launched the CI. I saw that you remove peek so apparently it was not tested :)

Hi Stéphane,
Happy New Year too, I was busy on another mandatory project using Python and pandas till last week, so I am just re-starting to work on my code.I am not sure about the peek removal: I copy pasted the code directly into the file (simplest given the long and total change on CTQueue), so I hope I haven't removed accidentally another method...