-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.2k
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
Query: Introduce method for providing brackets around SqlExpression based on operator precedence #26660
Conversation
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.
LGTM for now - looking forward to seeing the real stuff next...
@@ -430,7 +430,7 @@ protected virtual void CheckComposableSql(string sql) | |||
{ | |||
var i = span.IndexOf('\n'); | |||
span = i > 0 | |||
? span.Slice(i + 1).TrimStart() | |||
? span[(i + 1)..].TrimStart() |
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 like ranges, but in this very particular case I find it less readable...
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.
Why though? How is it different from any other range operation?
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.
Just compared to span.Slice(i+1)
. Less parentheses/brackets, less operators, less clutter.... Not very important.
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.
Lesser characters though.
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.
🤷
…ased on operator precedence This is just base infra for changes. Making changes in the logic and updating SQL in different commit for ease of reviewing
a2661a5
to
7f03879
Compare
Hello @smitpatel! Because this pull request has the p.s. you can customize the way I help with merging this pull request, such as holding this pull request until a specific person approves. Simply @mention me (
|
Apologies, while this PR appears ready to be merged, I've been configured to only merge when all checks have explicitly passed. The following integrations have not reported any progress on their checks and are blocking auto-merge:
These integrations are possibly never going to report a check, and unblocking auto-merge likely requires a human being to update my configuration to exempt these integrations from requiring a passing check. Give feedback on thisFrom the bot dev teamWe've tried to tune the bot such that it posts a comment like this only when auto-merge is blocked for exceptional, non-intuitive reasons. When the bot's auto-merge capability is properly configured, auto-merge should operate as you would intuitively expect and you should not see any spurious comments. Please reach out to us at fabricbotservices@microsoft.com to provide feedback if you believe you're seeing this comment appear spuriously. Please note that we usually are unable to update your bot configuration on your team's behalf, but we're happy to help you identify your bot admin. |
This is just base infra for changes. Making changes in the logic and updating SQL in different commit for ease of reviewing