-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 20
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
coding of NOT logical expressions #85
Comments
@tkardi - thanks for raising this. As there is no official spec for a Mapfile then I guess if they work then they meet the spec..! |
@tkardi - your Mapfiles are correct, and I'll need to update the expression parsing in mappyfile. See answer from Steve Lime at https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/mapserver-dev/2019-October/015886.html
I've added some MapServer tests to check these at MapServer/MapServer#5897 and an update to the docs at MapServer/MapServer-documentation#288 |
Thanks so much for pushing this forward. I have a whole bunch of mapfiles (which unfortunately I cannot share but) I can surely use them for testing expression parsing :) after the changes you talked about. |
Test (currently failing) added to check for this - test_class_not_expression_no_brackets |
Just to note (from @erezsh):
|
@tkardi - if you get a chance could you see if this issue is resolved with the latest master branch? |
Seems to be very OK:
Feel free to close this issue if ok with you :) |
Thanks for checking @tkardi |
A similar issue to #77. I managed to drill down that the offending line is
upon which mappyfile.open raises:
as removing the NOT keyword lets the file to be parsed with no further exceptions.
Looking at the docs on logical expressions every part the statement should be bracketed separately. So it seems this mapfile (and many others) have been written using a wrong or incomplete syntax. But then again these have survived 10-15 years of usage in a production environment..
So I guess where I'm trying to drive with this is - are these mapfiles broken and should they be fixed, or is there something that should/could be done with the lalr grammar file?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: