-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 314
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
node tag .identifier
!= token tag .identifier
, eg @Some
#1655
Conversation
This is @Techatrix's worse enemy :P |
Codecov ReportAttention:
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #1655 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 76.12% 76.12%
=======================================
Files 34 34
Lines 10007 10003 -4
=======================================
- Hits 7618 7615 -3
+ Misses 2389 2388 -1 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
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.
Could you add a new test case?
I've felt like reworking
What would it look like? |
eec8061
to
17e2893
Compare
How about making
Convert the code in #1645 into a semantic token test and reduce its size while ensuring that its still hits the assertion. |
I did consider special casing it in |
17e2893
to
44b55a8
Compare
Then have it return null and adjust the return type? |
Which function? |
|
I think it's better to be aware that they might fail + code(checks) dedup. |
I went with errors, returning |
6e6d754
to
6170acd
Compare
fixes #1645