Skip to content

Conversation

@oliverklee
Copy link
Collaborator

No description provided.

@coveralls
Copy link

coveralls commented Mar 2, 2025

Coverage Status

coverage: 55.808%. remained the same
when pulling 86e5460 on bugfix/type-annotation/ruleset
into 86aeaa7 on main.

Copy link
Collaborator

@JakeQZ JakeQZ left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I figured out why the Rules in RuleSet are a nested array. The top-level key is the property name. But since it's possible to have multiple rules for the same property, the values are (non-associative) arrays of Rules. The problem with this structure is that the ordering is lost, and we have #1052.

Anyway, I think the keys are always property names (whatever the RuleSet type), and there isn't really a concept of a 'rule name'.

@oliverklee oliverklee force-pushed the bugfix/type-annotation/ruleset branch from 3dcdca4 to df45995 Compare March 3, 2025 10:13
@oliverklee oliverklee requested a review from JakeQZ March 3, 2025 10:13
@oliverklee
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I've updated the comment accordingly (and also the variables names in #1039).

@oliverklee oliverklee force-pushed the bugfix/type-annotation/ruleset branch from df45995 to 86e5460 Compare March 3, 2025 10:21
@JakeQZ JakeQZ merged commit abcbb30 into main Mar 3, 2025
21 checks passed
@JakeQZ JakeQZ deleted the bugfix/type-annotation/ruleset branch March 3, 2025 12:28
oliverklee added a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 4, 2025
This is the V8.x backport of #1051.
JakeQZ pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 4, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants