Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
feat(common): add utility functions for xmlns attributes #173
feat(common): add utility functions for xmlns attributes #173
Changes from 2 commits
9101f12
3f1b035
d8da81a
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
should the term
prefix
be part of this name somehow?I think that is the term used in the XML specs, perhaps instead of the
key
which is related to theattribute
but we are dealing with astring
here. (more like a tokenizer)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.
The function is only meaningful when related to xml attribute keys, a regular string isn't a namespace key, I wanted to make it clear
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.
use simple JSDocs to give IDE hints for types: e.g:
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.
The link doesn't work
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.
Attempt #2 https://github.com/SAP/xml-tools/blob/master/packages/ast/lib/build-ast.js#L18-L23
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.
Added
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.
if (includeEmptyPrefix === true) {
correctness depends on running after:if (matchArr === null) { return false; }
should an
else if
be used to explicitly mark this relationship?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 prefer not to, would it be enough to add a comment?
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 don't think we need the
|| {}
in JavaScript.Because we know that in Node 10.0+ named capture groups are supported and that
the match succeed if we reached this line.
In TypeScript we used
|| {}
to calm to compiler as the.groups
property is defined as optional. so its not really defensive coding, we can prove it can't reach this branch so we don't actually need the branch.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'll remove it
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.
Would it be simpler to have more distinct groups in the regExp? (no overlap)
and then ask if 1 &2 exists (empty prefix case) or 1 & 2 & 3 exists (proper xmlns)
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 changed the condition a bit to make it clearer, let me know if you think I should still change this