WIP: Validate node_choices and token_choices #1032
Closed
Conversation
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
The python files put structural restrictions on the allowed syntax node kinds for
node_choices,token_choicesandtext_choicesbut we weren’t enforcing them anywhere during creation of raw nodes.With #1010 we are actually making use of these restrictions and are failing if the invariant we impose on ourselves are not upheld, which caused #1025.
This is still very much WIP because most test cases are hitting one of the new assertion failures now.
Alternative/additional ideas:
SyntaxNodeChoicesfor raw nodes to enforce the structuralnode_choicesconstraints at compile time.token_choicesandtext_choicesconstraints at compile time but I’m not sure if there’s a good way to model that.