-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.3k
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
Some bugfixes to the tool #3310
Conversation
if (ruleCommands.contains("more")) { | ||
firstCommand = "more"; | ||
} | ||
else if (ruleCommands.contains("type")) { | ||
} else if (ruleCommands.contains("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.
looks like this got reformatted making diff hard to read
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.
also is this java 7?
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.
looks like this got reformatted making diff hard to read
I've just applied the transform suggested by IDEA.
also is this java 7?
Yes, it's java 7:
In Java SE 7 and later, you can use a String object in the switch statement's expression.
https://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/java/nutsandbolts/switch.html
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.
Ok. I just never change software unless it's broken or needs to be enhanced. Is this such a case?
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.
I've removed useless and incorrect comparison and replaced if .. else
blocks with switch
. I can revert the last transform if it's more convenient for you.
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.
Yes, let's reduce changes just in case it changes logic. thanks.
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.
Hi @KvanTTT when you have time, could you reverse that if->switch transform? thanks!
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.
Yes, I've already reversed it. Now I'm working on another fix that will be done closer to the weekend.
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.
I've decided to move other fixes to another pull request. So, this request is ready for review.
c306522
to
754200f
Compare
Hi @KvanTTT getting an error now. Is this related to this PR? https://ci.appveyor.com/project/parrt/antlr4/builds/41296106/job/5707xytwjo4y7l42
|
Probably, but it's strange that there were no errors while merging the PR. I'll take a look. |
It's weird, but I can not reproduce the error on the latest master. ANTLR handles this file without errors. Also, CI was working after merging this PR: https://ci.appveyor.com/project/parrt/antlr4/builds/41266387 Maybe some other stuff broke the tool. |
@KvanTTT let me try running it again locally. |
No description provided.