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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Improve how assert and assert_eq are parsed and represented #6102

Closed
asterite opened this issue Sep 19, 2024 · 0 comments · Fixed by #6103
Closed

Improve how assert and assert_eq are parsed and represented #6102

asterite opened this issue Sep 19, 2024 · 0 comments · Fixed by #6103
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@asterite
Copy link
Collaborator

asterite commented Sep 19, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Problem

Right now assert and assert_eq have specific parse code to make sure we parse the correct number of arguments. This has a few issues:

  1. Not passing the correct number of arguments leads to a parsing error, which might be more confusing than "wrong number of arguments"
  2. If the number of arguments is wrong, and because it's a parser failure, LSP features like autocompletion stop working

Happy Case

When passing a wrong number of arguments to assert and assert_eq I should get a "wrong number of arguments" errors, not a parsing error. And LSP features like autocompletion should still work.

Workaround

None

Workaround Description

No response

Additional Context

No response

Project Impact

None

Blocker Context

No response

Would you like to submit a PR for this Issue?

None

Support Needs

No response
@asterite asterite added the enhancement New feature or request label Sep 19, 2024
@github-project-automation github-project-automation bot moved this to 📋 Backlog in Noir Sep 19, 2024
@asterite asterite mentioned this issue Sep 19, 2024
Merged
5 tasks
github-merge-queue bot pushed a commit that referenced this issue Sep 20, 2024
@asterite
feat: represent assertions more similarly to function calls (#6103)
3ecd0e2 
# Description

## Problem

Resolves #6102

## Summary

See the relevant issue, but in addition to LSP working better, and
getting a better error message when giving an incorrect number of
arguments to `assert` and `assert_eq`, I think the code ends up being
slightly simpler.

## Additional Context

## Documentation

Check one:
- [x] No documentation needed.
- [ ] Documentation included in this PR.
- [ ] **[For Experimental Features]** Documentation to be submitted in a
separate PR.

# PR Checklist

- [x] I have tested the changes locally.
- [x] I have formatted the changes with [Prettier](https://prettier.io/)
and/or `cargo fmt` on default settings.
@github-project-automation github-project-automation bot moved this from 📋 Backlog to ✅ Done in Noir Sep 20, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
Noir
Status: ✅ Done
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

feat: represent assertions more similarly to function calls noir-lang/noir
1 participant
@asterite