-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 6.1k
Extend tests against invalid CLI option/input mode combinations to cover evmasm import mode #16518
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Merged
+46
−33
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
i was itching to make this a
static std::array constexprbut that would've been a bigger refactor and entailed making all the global static strings in the implementation fileg_str*string views or similar and update the various string concatenations in the cli tofmt::formatstyle. didn't seem worth the effort in the end.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
You mean you'd replace them with global static
string_views? Don't they still need to be attached to some string stored somewhere? What would that look like?TBH I have mixed feelings about those global strings. I kept them back when I refactored the CLI, but they're clunky, not used consistently for all options and I'm not sure this really saves us all that much. The biggest benefit is I guess preventing typos when you have to use an existing option name in a bunch more places, but that's not much.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If you write
static std::string_view constexpr v{"hi"}then that string literal in there already has static storage duration and so the string view can just point to that - they have constexpr support :)So something like this works, too:
Not the biggest fan of them, either. I agree, they have dubious value here... I'd be much happier with a struct that defines the properties of an option somewhere and having a couple of these.