-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
[4/n] add stricter typing in JsonPathStack #15
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
Open
sunshowers
wants to merge
8
commits into
sunshowers/spr/main.4n-add-stricter-typing-in-jsonpathstack
Choose a base branch
from
sunshowers/spr/2n-add-stricter-typing-in-jsonpathstack
base: sunshowers/spr/main.4n-add-stricter-typing-in-jsonpathstack
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
8 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
b72f148
[spr] initial version
sunshowers 23982f9
[spr] changes to main this commit is based on
sunshowers 2c96ca4
clippy
sunshowers 96dab89
[spr] changes introduced through rebase
sunshowers 7045223
copyright year
sunshowers 1c765ad
rebase on main, include test for omicron failure
sunshowers 4addd2c
rebase on #23, switch to cycle detection via postorder DFS
sunshowers 8a960bf
more comments explaining soundness
sunshowers File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
Some comments aren't visible on the classic Files Changed page.
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
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
Oops, something went wrong.
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
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.
In this PR I replaced the existing cycle detection check, which relied on looking at the stack of schemas, with a more explicit DFS postorder check.
This is equivalent to the old code:
Why? Basically because having a prefix in the stack is equivalent to being in the visiting state while performing the DFS. The tests added in #23 don't have any output differences, which is a reasonable sign that there aren't any behavior changes here.
I like how explicit the postorder check is, and it also fits quite nicely into
visit_state.