Merged
Conversation
Contributor
|
What is the use-case for this autofixer? According to the principle of least surprise, I would strongly vote for no autofixing and instead fail early on bad input: A key part of the value provided by starTable is the ability to review final inputs. If you cannot reliably predict how inputs will be handled, that becomes very hard. |
BennyLassen
approved these changes
Nov 11, 2020
Member
Author
|
TL;DR: I agree @JanusWesenberg . I turned this into Issue #71 The autofixer wasn't my idea or something I advocated for. I think the use cases were something along these lines:
|
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
I ripped out everything to do with "fixing" missing column names, because it breaks support for comments placed to the right of tables, specifically on the same row as column names. Which basically violates the StarTable standard. As described in #72
This makes me a bit skeptical of the other aspects of
ParseFixer... does any of these "auto fixes" break anything else? Will some of them not take users by surprise sometimes? Worth revisiting in the future and verifying that they do not cause more harm than good. @JanusWesenberg I'm sure you have an opinion here