Parser changes for supporting relationship expiration #2141
Conversation
This adds a concept of a "flaggable" lexer which, when detecting a `use (flag)` statement, runs a transformation to change the tokens returned to the parent. This is currently used to rewrite certain identifiers as keywords.
github-actions
bot
added
area/schema
josephschorr
force-pushed
the
rel-expiration-parser
branch
from
4de954b to
9b89c57
Compare
| @@ -11,6 +11,7 @@ const ( | |||
| NodeTypeError NodeType = iota // error occurred; value is text of error | |||
| NodeTypeFile // The file root node | |||
| NodeTypeComment // A single or multiline comment | |||
| NodeTypeUseFlag // A use flag | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Are we worried about shifting the order of subsequent node types?
If not, I'll probably change some of how I'm doing my work.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No, the order shouldn't matter here. All references are by names, and the tests all use the names too
| {TokenTypeKeyword, 0, "expiration", ""}, | ||
| tEOF, | ||
| }}, | ||
| {"use expiration and", "use expiration and", []Lexeme{ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What role does and play here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
relation viewer: user with caveat and expiration - the and is a keyword in this case
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I changed it to the new lexer; we no longer had a peek on it
| if p.isToken(lexer.TokenTypeIdentifier) { | ||
| useFlag, _ = p.consumeIdentifier() | ||
| } else { | ||
| useName, ok := p.consumeVariableKeyword() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The idea being that under some schema version, this is potentially already a keyword?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Its a keyword when the use rule is in place, but not a keyword for invalid rules
| @@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ NodeTypeFile | |||
| caveat-name = somecaveat | |||
| end-rune = 67 | |||
| input-source = caveats type test | |||
| start-rune = 53 | |||
| start-rune = 58 | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is kind of surprising - is this because with was previously a part of the caveat definition?
| start-rune = 0 | ||
| NodeTypeError | ||
| end-rune = 22 | ||
| error-message = Unexpected token at root level: TokenTypeIdentifier |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is there an easy way to make this error more specific without special handling?
Step 1 of support for first-class relationship expiration: parser changes