Skip to content
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

Write a sourcepos test for each NodeValue variant #498

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Feb 25, 2025

Conversation

SamWilsn
Copy link
Contributor

@SamWilsn SamWilsn commented Dec 4, 2024

Not sure if these are already covered elsewhere. I wrote one for my own knowledge, and kept going... A few are disabled because I believe the returned sourcepos are incorrect.

Apologies for stacking this on top of #497. Looking at just 38f2403 might be best.

@digitalmoksha
Copy link
Collaborator

Some of these are covered at the bottom of the specific test file, such as https://github.com/kivikakk/comrak/blob/main/src/tests/wikilinks.rs#L218-L276, though not everything is covered. So more coverage of this is super helpful.

Yeah, there is still more work to do on getting inline sourcepos working consistently.

@SamWilsn
Copy link
Contributor Author

SamWilsn commented Dec 6, 2024

How do you feel about the whole strum plus match approach to ensuring all variants are tested?

Comment on lines +398 to +418
List // end is 3:0
| Item // end is 3:0
| TaskItem // end is 4:0
| DescriptionItem // end is 4:0
| DescriptionTerm // end is 3:0
| DescriptionDetails // end is 4:0
| HtmlInline // end is 1:31 but should be 3:14
| LineBreak // start is 1:15 but should be 1:13
| Code // is 1:8-1:12 but should be 1:7-1:13
| ThematicBreak // end is 4:0
| Link // inconsistent between link types
| Math // is 3:2-3:6 but should be 3:1-3:7
Copy link
Contributor Author

@SamWilsn SamWilsn Dec 6, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If y'all can confirm that all of these are bugs, I'll try my hand at fixing them.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah I think those are all incorrect sourcesos 😢

@kivikakk
Copy link
Owner

👋 A lot has changed, so I've brought this PR up-to-date! I really like the approach, and I'd be happy to merge it now, rather than wait for all sourcepos to be fixed first (which will probably necessitate another big rebase).

Some of the changes in this branch have already landed in slightly different form, so a few commits got omitted; please feel free to restore to your version (or whatever you like), my force push here is mostly a suggestion in case you're a fan!

@SamWilsn
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thank you! I haven't had time to work on this in... four months apparently 😅

Go ahead with whatever commits you think are best.

@kivikakk kivikakk marked this pull request as ready for review February 25, 2025 05:23
@kivikakk kivikakk enabled auto-merge February 25, 2025 05:23
@kivikakk kivikakk merged commit 58c8cc4 into kivikakk:main Feb 25, 2025
19 checks passed
@kivikakk
Copy link
Owner

Thanks so much!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants