You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The E2 rule's regex used to check whether a field is a PK seems outdated: const pkRegex = /^([0-9]+pk|pk[0-9]+)_([a-z0-9A-Z_]+)$/;
This forces all fields in sql_on to have a number following or preceding pk. But as I understand, an update made possible to use pk_xxx directly when the number of fields used for the PK is exactly 1.
The correct regex should then probably be the same as for rule K1-2-3-4: const pkRegex = /^([0-9]+pk|pk[0-9]*)_([a-z0-9A-Z_]+)$/
I would gladly contribute to the project for others bugs I found, do not hesitate to contact me if needed: taha.belkhayate@jellysmack.com
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
The E2 rule's regex used to check whether a field is a PK seems outdated:
const pkRegex = /^([0-9]+pk|pk[0-9]+)_([a-z0-9A-Z_]+)$/;
This forces all fields in
sql_on
to have a number following or precedingpk
. But as I understand, an update made possible to usepk_xxx
directly when the number of fields used for the PK is exactly 1.The correct regex should then probably be the same as for rule K1-2-3-4:
const pkRegex = /^([0-9]+pk|pk[0-9]*)_([a-z0-9A-Z_]+)$/
I would gladly contribute to the project for others bugs I found, do not hesitate to contact me if needed: taha.belkhayate@jellysmack.com
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: