-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 209
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
Close parenthesis fix #580
Conversation
@VibhorCodecianGupta the paranthesis "{ }" don't need to be escaped "\{" in regex. |
@harshkhandeparkar that was already in place, I made changes to the closing braces only. Should I remove the |
|
I actually didn't understange your change. How can |
By the way, what settingValue can have a |
@harshkhandeparkar I tested out some possibilities, and it turns out that using the |
Maybe replacing |
@harshkhandeparkar cool then. For now I'll update the pr with working commits, and proceed as mentors guide |
Hmm, ok -- maybe we need to take a step back and:
That'll ensure we know why it was originally created and we won't break the original purpose while fixing the new bug. I looked at the blame: It led me back to #313 that made it possible to use I believe the original is attempting to make it possible to use Then we can debug what happens here. How does that sound? |
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #580 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 37.04% 37.04%
=======================================
Files 100 100
Lines 1857 1857
Branches 291 291
=======================================
Hits 688 688
Misses 1169 1169
|
@jywarren after looking at the aforementioned issues, and logging some outputs, this is what is happening: As can be seen, in favour of supporting #306 , the parenthesis was also expected to be removed from the string passing the steps and options. That works fine, except for the This solution, however, completely depends on whether we still want IS to support the old syntax of using |
Ah... I see. I guess this is a good reason to drop () then... what do you
think? I could imagine trying to develop a more sophisticated parser,
perhaps using regex, but I'm not sure how possible it is. And perhaps a
simpler one with a simpler string syntax is the better solution?
…On Wed, Apr 17, 2019, 12:28 PM Vibhor Gupta ***@***.***> wrote:
@VibhorCodecianGupta <https://github.com/VibhorCodecianGupta> requested
your review on: #580
<#580> Close parenthesis
fix.
—
You are receiving this because your review was requested.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#580 (comment)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AABfJ_aXEZA-eCIIeLpN7vANmJO6gCxBks5vh0t6gaJpZM4ZlRQ6>
.
|
I guess we could drop the |
Let's drop the (); I don't think any other apps are using it because it was from very early on. Thanks!!! |
Nevermind about the parser... I think there's a way to "find matching parentheses" working from the outside in, but I really think it's not worth it even if it is possible. Thanks a lot! |
@jywarren in that case, I think this is good to go. I'll just fix the conflicts then, and update the docs? |
Great!!! |
@jywarren can we make this a part of the next bump as well? |
Merging this now! We'll try to pick it up in |
Fixes #459
rake test
@publiclab/reviewers
for help, in a comment belowPlease be sure you've reviewed our contribution guidelines at https://publiclab.org/contributing-to-public-lab-software
Thanks!