Fix lookahead for pattern expression in switch entries [Issue 4455]#4458
Merged
jlerbsc merged 3 commits intojavaparser:masterfrom Jun 6, 2024
Merged
Conversation
johannescoetzee
changed the title
Collaborator
|
Thank for this PR. |
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Fixes #4455.
The bug was that the
LOOKAHEAD(3)(or in general any fixed-distance lookahead) is not sufficient to determine whetherFoo.Bar.Baz. ...is a field access expression or a nested type name. Without knowledge about the next symbol,CustomDeployTableModel.ARTIFACT_NAMEcould just be the name of an inner classARTIFACT_NAMEWith this PR, I've changed the lookahead to check whether the next tokens describe a pattern expression, which could be slow for long expressions, but will keep inspecting tokens until the answer is unambiguous.