This repository has been archived by the owner on Apr 1, 2022. It is now read-only.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Merge rebar aliases into analyzer #139
Merge rebar aliases into analyzer #139
Changes from all commits
525f851
cb43ad1
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This pattern match is a beast, but it actually seems like the most idiomatic thing. It's kind of a weird structure to find, functionally, so expressing it as-is seems to make sense.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
[nit] Would it make sense to have multiple
ErlTuple
values in theConfigValues
array for the test now that we made that possible with theConfigValues
type?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Not sure I understand. It already supports multiple
ErlValues
.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yea that makes sense, I was asking if we should modify the test values to contain multiple
ErlValues
so that we can test itThere was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ah, the real-life test already checks that. It fails if the parser doesn't sit just right. Check here