allow for problem patterns without a line#39936
Conversation
|
Will update to follow the discussion in #6538 |
|
First impressions/questions after trying to implement this (CC: @dbaeumer, since you're the one that proposed the 'kind' property in the first place)
I would appreciate some guidance there ... Completely new to the codebase. |
67464af to
4f31fd8
Compare
|
First take on it. Went the shortest route, that is requiring that 'kind' is within the first pattern in a multi-pattern. It's unit tested, but as of yet not tested "in daily use". |
|
@doudou thanks a lot for looking into this! Regarding your questions:
Let me know what you think about it. |
Sounds reasonable, I'm going to stick to that. The PR already implements it this way. Could you have a look ? I'm still testing, but I'm guessing that you might have some comments ;-) |
dbaeumer
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks a lot for the code and especially for the test! Highly appreciated.
I only have two minor comments
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could we fold this with the forEach from below. May be it would be easiest to turn the forEach into a for(pattern of values).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can we add a comment to say that the value is only valid on the first entry. Like we do with loop.
4f31fd8 to
8652645
Compare
Updated. |
|
Not in 1.20 :( Anything missing in there ? |
|
No, nothing missing here. I was very busy with Language Pack support in 1.20 which required bigger changes in the loader and core code of VS Code. So I needed to shift this to February. |
|
I merge the PR. Thanks for providing it. |
|
Thanks ! And thanks for vscode ... the first IDE that made me leave vim in 10 years. |
Problem matchers currently must provide a line (and will be ignored if they don't). There's however sometimes problems that have no lines.
In these cases, using the matcher, assuming a line of 1, would be IMO a lot more useful than ignoring it.
Closes #39919