-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 475
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
feat: start working on yaml support #2428
Conversation
✅ Deploy Preview for biomejs ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration. |
("*", "ASTERISK"), | ||
("#", "HASH"), | ||
("---", "DOC_START"), | ||
("...", "DOC_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.
Should we also add &
and <<
here? (for "anchors": https://support.atlassian.com/bitbucket-cloud/docs/yaml-anchors/)
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.
Yea that sounds good to me, I overlooked them.
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.
https://yaml.org/spec/1.2.2/#anchors-and-aliases searching in this file for override
and <<
gave me no results, do you know why that is different than the atlassian site?
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'm a bit surprised, I used overrides myself when dealing with Gitlab CI configurations (so it's not only Atlassian who uses them). Looking into that now... 🤔
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.
Surely yaml.org would keep their own spec updated right ..... right?
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.
Oh. Interesting. See https://yaml.org/spec/1.2.2/ext/changes/ , in section "Changes in version 1.2 (revision 1.2.0) (2009-07-21)".
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.
Okay that would mean that in our quest of supporting the latest (for now) we should leave it out. Although that immediatly makes it less useful since most people use yaml for ci and other infra stuff and there it probably still works
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.
Seeing this, I'm not sure about the ideal approach for this. Shared grammar for both specs? and running specialized checks later at the parser & linter levels?
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.
Probably yes since otherwise we take away most of the reason that people would use this.
CodSpeed Performance ReportMerging #2428 will not alter performanceComparing Summary
|
@defnot001 can we make the PR ready and merge it? It's ok if there's still nothing, but having the crates in place will unblock everyone |
copy paste bad
Co-authored-by: Maikel <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Maikel <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Maikel <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Maikel <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Maikel <[email protected]>
@defnot001 I just pushed a couple of commits to fix the CI failure. I think the PR is ready to be merged. |
there is some todo!() in there
@defnot001 I think you have to run |
perfect, just did that thanks :) |
Summary
first step in issue #2365
This PR has the grammar and all the required steps to get codegen to run (the generated files are also in this PT). I made this PR so other contributors don't have to do the same thing than I did.
Please leave your suggestions and opinions on the very simple grammar I did so far.
Test Plan
Currently nothing shows that my implementation is actually correct.