Fix bug multiline comment in cinaps#2469
Closed
mdelvecchio-jsc wants to merge 2 commits intoocaml-ppx:mainfrom
Closed
Fix bug multiline comment in cinaps#2469mdelvecchio-jsc wants to merge 2 commits intoocaml-ppx:mainfrom
mdelvecchio-jsc wants to merge 2 commits intoocaml-ppx:mainfrom
Conversation
Julow
added a commit
to Julow/ocamlformat
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 7, 2023
Collaborator
|
The normalization of comments changed in #2371 and this is no longer needed to fix the issue. |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Fixes #2468.
Previously, if a comment got reformatted within cinaps code, the check that comments are preserved would fail. Normalization logic exists to allow formatting of code in cinaps comments, but normalization did not descend into comments within cinaps code.
This patch fixes the issue and adds tests for it.
Note: this issue is also fixed by #2371, so likely doesn't need to be merged, but I am putting this here in case that pull request gets blocked.