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

Fixed @<column> requirement implementation #2069

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Nov 12, 2024
Merged

Conversation

PieterOlivier
Copy link
Contributor

@PieterOlivier PieterOlivier commented Nov 4, 2024

The Rascal "@" syntax column requirement was implemented incorrectly. Filtering was done if the current column was the expected column while it should have been the other way around.
This PR fixes this issue.

Copy link

codecov bot commented Nov 4, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 49%. Comparing base (a10f8cd) to head (13e29dd).
Report is 32 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##              main   #2069   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage       49%     49%           
- Complexity    6302    6311    +9     
=======================================
  Files          664     664           
  Lines        59635   59635           
  Branches      8648    8648           
=======================================
+ Hits         29471   29483   +12     
+ Misses       27950   27932   -18     
- Partials      2214    2220    +6     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

Copy link
Contributor

@toinehartman toinehartman left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for the quick fix!

@DavyLandman
Copy link
Member

DavyLandman commented Nov 5, 2024

@PieterOlivier can you add an description of the bug it fixes to the GH description?

@DavyLandman DavyLandman merged commit 7de3427 into main Nov 12, 2024
7 checks passed
@jurgenvinju
Copy link
Member

Super! We need the inverse operator too if this will ever be useful for disambiguation. So at least !@ and maybe >@ and <@ too because then two alternative trees can mutually exclude each other.

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.

5 participants