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

Guard expressions regression in 2.6.0 (#2798) #2819

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Feb 18, 2016

Conversation

SomMeri
Copy link
Member

@SomMeri SomMeri commented Feb 17, 2016

This fixes #2798 - left part of inequality could not be enclosed in parenthesis.

@SomMeri
Copy link
Member Author

SomMeri commented Feb 17, 2016

@seven-phases-max @matthew-dean The AppVeyor error message has no "detail" link in it so I do not see what kind of error happened. Do you have an experience with something like that or know how to fix it? Unit tests on my environment passed, so I need to see what is going on over there.

@seven-phases-max
Copy link
Member

The AppVeyor seems to work pretty much randomly for the past one or two months (Honestly I don't understand what exactly it is about so I have no idea what to do with that).

@SomMeri
Copy link
Member Author

SomMeri commented Feb 17, 2016

So I guess we should merge it in despite it failin? It would be better if the fix would be testegd on linux too through.

Then we should fix both appveyor and travis setup, travis don't seem to run at all.

@seven-phases-max
Copy link
Member

travis don't seem to run at all.

Travis test still runs fine on its own. I suspect it's some glitch in an underlying AppVeyor/Travis/GitHub services rather than anything wrong with our config or so...

P.S. The test at AppVeyor also looks fine so apparently it's something with these Tools <-> GitHub communication.

seven-phases-max added a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 18, 2016
@seven-phases-max seven-phases-max merged commit 1bc481b into less:master Feb 18, 2016
@seven-phases-max
Copy link
Member

Ah, sorry, my mistake (I did miss my local branch did not fetch properly). I'll delete my posts to avoid future confusion.

@SomMeri
Copy link
Member Author

SomMeri commented Feb 18, 2016

@seven-phases-max :):

@SomMeri
Copy link
Member Author

SomMeri commented Feb 18, 2016

@seven-phases-max I was trying to find some full suite of tests for logical grammar we could use, but no luck so far.

@seven-phases-max
Copy link
Member

I was trying to find some full suite of tests for logical grammar we could use, but no luck so far.

I don't think such can exist. If we would have a single straight-forward grammar for this, we'd simply need to test basic parens handling (independent of what operand the parens belong to) and operator precedence. And with those passing, we could be less or more sure that whatever complex combination of expressions will work as expected.

But currently it's just three isolated/independent grammars (logical, comparison and arithmetic) each having its own parens, precedence and nesting rules and limitations. Thus no matter how fine are the tests provided for each grammar layer, there're still a lot of unknowns where these three independend grammar layers are connected to each other (i.e. in other words, it's still pretty much about knowing/predicting the edge-cases that are supposed or not supposed to work, e.g. ((true) = (true))).

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.

Guard expressions regression in 2.6.0
2 participants