Nokogiri::XML::SAX::PushParser.new() supports keyword arguments #3337
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Thanks for your patience. The last couple of weeks have been really busy, but I'm hoping to review and merge this in the next week or so! |
|
I'm going to wait to merge this until I figure out all of the needed SAX-related changes (which requires more invasive changes to the C code), so this won't land in v1.17.0 but I'll target v1.18.0. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
What problem is this PR intended to solve?
Related to #3323, introducing keyword argument support in Nokogiri::XML::SAX::PushParser.new().
Note: I presumed that
docshould remain a positional argument given the method comment.Have you included adequate test coverage?
No; there were no existing tests for the optional positional arguments.
Does this change affect the behavior of either the C or the Java implementations?
No