-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 32
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
Issue 473 assertion #476
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Issue 473 assertion #476
Conversation
Previously the spans of empty productions were lost from the AST. When a conflict involving an empty production was found a panic would ensue due to the missing span.
Oops, I missed this one because I wasn't assigned -- sorry! |
Dumb question: does this fix the |
My bad, I seem to consistently mix up assignment vs request review. It does fix it, however I'm not entirely absolutely certain it is totally correct. I had been thinking that it would be good to do some local testing where I made the I don't think it is worth including that kind of patch just because of compatibility, but just locally to get a better idea of where this |
Good idea! |
@ratmice I was just wondering if you've had any luck with this? |
No I'm sorry, I haven't managed to sit down and work on this, or anything yet really. I've taken the month for attempting to see if I can sustain walking 24km a day (hint I cannot, If I really push myself I can still only seem to sustain 22km), So most of my time has been just walking or recovering for the next day. But been keeping at it considering how close to that goal I seem to be... It is inevitable that I'll need a rest day soon, but have a pretty good streak going and when I do it is the first thing on my list. Sorry if that isn't a very satisfying answer. |
This seems to fix the assert in issue 473, however i'm marking this as draft because
for some reason the spans seem off by one when parsing the examples posted in that issue.
Strangely the spans are fine for the fuzzer minimized reproducer. Should probably also add test cases etc.
I wonder if this could be due to comments?
The other thing is that after fixing the assertion, nimbleparse seems to return to taking forever to parse the file.
I believe that it might be caused by running error recovery, as I did see some error recovery output.
For some reason It isn't clear whether a mention of @mingodad will work, but he may want to try this patch.