Update HTML4::DocumentFragment#initialize & #parse to take kwargs#3336
Closed
MattJones wants to merge 3 commits intosparklemotion:mainfrom
Closed
Update HTML4::DocumentFragment#initialize & #parse to take kwargs#3336MattJones wants to merge 3 commits intosparklemotion:mainfrom
MattJones wants to merge 3 commits intosparklemotion:mainfrom
Conversation
MattJones
changed the title
Member
|
Thanks for your patience. The last couple of weeks have been really busy, but I'm hoping to review and merge this in the next week or so! |
flavorjones
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 8, 2024
Related to #3323 This commit was merged and expanded from #3336, thank you @MattJones! Co-authored-by: Matt Jones <matthew.hartley.jones@gmail.com>
Member
|
@MattJones I'm merging these commits into #3355 so I can have one giant PR for all the Document and DocumentFragment updates! Edit: original message had the wrong PR number. |
flavorjones
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 8, 2024
Related to #3323 This commit was merged and expanded from #3336, thank you @MattJones! Co-authored-by: Matt Jones <matthew.hartley.jones@gmail.com>
flavorjones
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 8, 2024
…ke keyword arguments (#3355) **What problem is this PR intended to solve?** As part of #3323 there were a few RubyConf 2024 Hack Day pull requests addressing Document and DocumentFragment constructors which were related to, or blocked on, some changes to the C code. So this PR is a mega-PR that merges all those PRs and unifies the code and doc style: - #3327 - #3336 - #3334 - #3335 But in addition to those PRs also updates: - the `XML::DocumentFragment` new/initialize argument handling for CRuby and JRuby - `XML::DocumentFragment#initialize` kwargs - `HTML4::Document.parse` kwargs - general improvement of documentation **Have you included adequate test coverage?** I think so! **Does this change affect the behavior of either the C or the Java implementations?** The XML::DocumentFragment allocator has changed, but both implementations have been updated.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What problem is this PR intended to solve?
#3323
Have you included adequate test coverage?
Yes and No. Test coverage is included for
#parse. But the theDocumentFragment.newclass method calls a C method, which is not getting touched here. Thus I can't add in tests using.new.@flavorjones : you'll need to update the C code to accept keyword args. Then, you can update this call. Also you'll want to add some tests. I added two in
test_document_fragmentbefore I realized they wouldn't work. One for "without a context node" and one for "with a context node".Does this change affect the behavior of either the C or the Java implementations?
I.... don't think so?