allow defining parsers for non-digit tags

[prometh07]

No description provided.

[bumi]

@Uepsilon what do you think?
for me this looks like a safe change. maybe we can add some specs for that parser?

[Uepsilon]

specs would be nice, otherwise it's great!

[bumi]

which would probably be a spec to parse an example of such an MT940 file?

[bumi]

@Uepsilon did you merge it now without specs?!

[Uepsilon]

I did and added a spec afterwards.

…

On Fri, 25 Jan 2019, 23:07 Michael Bumann, ***@***.***> wrote: @Uepsilon <https://github.com/Uepsilon> did you merge it now without specs?! — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#26 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAbobeV5EbD9DfkrCaSE96qw1qaS5xRtks5vG4AtgaJpZM4aDeCU> .

[bumi]

ah, missed that. great! 🎉

[Uepsilon]

i wasn't sure if i could have appended my specs to the PR of @prometh07 as it was coming from his fork. is that possible or what would have been the way to go here?

[bumi]

yep, pushing in the branch and thus updating the PR would be best I guess.

[Uepsilon]

but i could not have pushed in that branch as it came from a fork i do not have write access to

[Uepsilon]

could have mirrored the branch and then updated the PR

[prometh07]

I was going to add some specs but you guys were faster. ;)

[Uepsilon]

⚡️ 🏎 🏃 💨

:)

[bumi]

@Uepsilon typically (by default) it is enabled that maintainers have write access to the branch of the fork to update the PR.
So you could have pushed to prometh07:nonswift_fields and this PR would have been updated.
This is probably also a best practice as everything related to this PR is then documented here.

[Uepsilon]

ah. this is amazing to know. i was not aware of that.. thanks @bumi, i'll check it next time